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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7781

FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; MARGARET WATKINS; GLEN E.

CONRAD; ALAN KATZ; PAMELA ANNE SARGENT; D. A.

BRAXTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7782

FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE; SUPERVISOR SPRADLIN; COUNSELOR

VASS; SERGEANT PAYNE; EDWARD C. MORRIS; GENE

M. JOHNSON; RICHARD A. YOUNG; LONNIE M.

SAUNDERS; Y. ELSWICK,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

No. 95-7783

FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; RICHARD A.

YOUNG; GEORGE DEEDS; D. A. BRAXTON; MARGRET

WATKINS; MIKE SPRADLING; JAMES W. COFFEE;

JULIE HALL; ALAN KATZ; PAMELA ANNE SARGENT;

MARY E. SHEA, Esquire; T. P. KAGEY; GLEN E.

CONRAD,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7784

FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. A. YOUNG; GEORGE DEEDS; D. A. BRAXTON;

R. C. METHENA,

Defendants - Appellees.
3

No. 95-7785

FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; ALAN KATZ; PAMELA ANNE

SARGENT; T. P. KAGEY; CASSANDRA HARISTON;

GEORGE DEEDS; D. A. BRAXTON; MARGARET WATKINS;

GENE M. JOHNSON; RICHARD A. YOUNG; PATRICK J.

CURNEY; Y. ELSWICK; P. J. RICH; SUSAN COX;

WANDA BARTON; J. W. BAKER; GLEN E. CONRAD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

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

(CA-95-1069-R, CA-95-1070-R, CA-95-1071-R, CA-95-1072-R, CA-95-

1073-R)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed

the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Altizer v. Deeds, No. CA-95-1069-R; Altizer v.

Angelone, Nos. CA-95-1070-R; CA-95-1071-R; CA-95-1073-R; Altizer v.

Young, No. CA-95-1072-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 6 & 10, 1995). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1

ALD-259 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3021

___________

In Re: JOSEPH W. HIGGINS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to Civ. No. 3-11-cv-01821)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

August 16, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 28, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Joseph W. Higgins, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District 

Court to rule on his Motion for Default Judgment, which was filed in January 2012. For

the following reasons, mandamus relief is not warranted. 

Higgins filed a complaint alleging that he is the victim of a conspiracy of 

“unlawful, intentional, willful and evil misconduct of retaliation” and invidious 

discrimination at the hands of several state court judges, state court employees, and a 
2

United States District Judge. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis of 

res judicata, because the same allegations, articulated in a separate complaint, had already 

been dismissed, and because absolute judicial immunity barred any additional claims 

against the United States District Court judge. On the same day as the order was entered, 

Higgins moved for default judgment as to all state defendants. In July, Higgins filed this 

mandamus petition seeking to compel a ruling on the motion, which remains pending. 

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is proper in only extraordinary circumstances. In 

re Grand Jury, 680 F.3d 328, 340 (3d Cir. 2012). Its traditional purpose is “to confine an 

inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise 

its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 

26 (1943). A petitioner must demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. 

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). While undue delay can 

amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. 

, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 

1996), it is plain from the District Court’s docket that there has been no such undue delay 

in Higgins’s case. We are confident that the District Court will issue a ruling on 

Higgins’s motion in due course.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Globus International Resources Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof December 30,
2002, I, Herman Roth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (3)  the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (4)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ HERMAN ROTH
--------------------------
Herman Roth
Chief Financial Officer
December 30, 2002
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0335

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID MICHAEL YOUMANS,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including September 27, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 24 2020

08/24/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0335
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted

pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Eclipsys Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Philip M.
Pead, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 23, 2010



/s/ Philip M. PeadPhilip M. PeadPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE FIBRES, INC., and Textile Union Local No. 146, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Respondents.

No. 16473.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

April 27, 1960.

Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Frederick U. Reel, Marion L. Griffin, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Merrill & Commons, Rodney G. Commons, Oakland, Cal., for respondents.

Before BARNES and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The facts establishing the jurisdiction of the Board were stipulated, and the petition is before us pursuant to Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e).

No answer to the petition was filed by the union by time of oral argument. A one page answer was filed by the company — but without the advice or under the supervision of an attorney. At oral argument we granted permission to the union to file a reply brief, and that has been recieved.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that the employee was discharged by the employer for failure to pay union fines assessed because of his failure to attend one or more union meetings, and/or a new initiation fee if he wanted to obtain a lay off card. There was also sufficient evidence to properly infer that the refusal to issue the withdrawal card which the employee requested was an artifice employed by the union to enforce the payment of union fines assessed for failure to attend union meetings. There is also sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that the employer knew of the union’s actions, although the union requested . the em*780ployee’s discharge only on the ground of his failure to pay *dues.*

The right to refrain from union activities is a privilege guaranteed to an employee. 29 U.S.C.A. § 157. The employer is held to strict standards where there is proof he has notice of the union’s actual reasons for the discharge. N. L. R. B. v. International Ass’n, 9 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 173. The employer and the union engaged in conduct proscribed, respectively, by Section 8(a) (1) and (3), and Section 8(b) (1) (A) and 8(b) (2) of the Act.

The Board’s order will be enforced, but not in the form requested. There shall be stricken from the order paragraphs 1(1) (b) and 2(1) (b). Otherwise, the Board’s order is enforced.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on the evening I learned I had been elected 
to the Senate in 1972, one of the commitments I made to myself was that 
I would never fail to see a young person or a group of young people who 
wanted to see me. It was certainly beneficial to me that I did because 
I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I 
have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate.
  Most of them have been concerned about the magnitude of the Federal 
debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The 
young people and I always discuss the fact that under the Constitution, 
no President can spend even a dime of Federal money that has not first 
been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the 
United States.
  That is why I have been making these daily reports to the Senate 
since February 22, 1992. I want to make it a matter of record precisely 
the size of the Federal debt which as of Thursday, May 18, stood at 
$4,885,256,391,108.42 or $18,544.52 on a per capita basis.
  What Congress has already done to future generations is immoral.
  

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE
15D-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OFTITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES
CODE

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this annual
report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Logitech International S.A. (the
Company) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Gerald P.
Quindlen, the Chief Executive Officer and Thomas E. Fergoda, the acting Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each certify that, to the best of his
knowledge:

| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act;
      and                                                  
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    
| | (2) |  | the information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.

June 1, 2009

/s/ Gerald P.
QuindlenGerald P. QuindlenChief
Executive Officer

/s/ Thomas E.
FergodaThomas E. FergodaVice
President and CorporateController / Acting
Chief Financial Officer

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Devin Deon COLLINS.

No. 2010-K-1893.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Collins, Devin Deon; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 07-07-0689; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2102.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          CALL FOR AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL IN SPEAKER'S ETHICS CASE

  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of our House is an intelligent 
person. He is a student of history. He has been a professor of history 
and indeed he has helped write a lot of recent history. He knows well 
the historical precedent to avoid even the semblance of conflict or 
impropriety.
  Now the House and the House Ethics Committee faces an important 
question on ethical violations--
  Questions concerning the activities of GOPAC under the control of the 
Speaker; questions concerning possible conflicts of interest with a 
book deal and a publisher who might have involvement and interest 
before this body.
  Despite promises that the Ethics Committee would approve any signing 
of a book deal, the Speaker went ahead and signed it, anyway, and then 
received a letter from the Ethics Committee saying you should not make 
any assumptions about our signing or approving that conduct.
  In previous high-profile cases, 22 out of 46 since 1968, an outside 
counsel has been appointed including for the most recent Speaker under 
investigation, Speaker Wright. Today the Ethics Committee is deadlocked 
on partisan lines.
  Historical precedent is clear here--avoid even the semblance of a 
conflict. I would urge the appointment of an outside counsel.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    In connection with the Annual Report of IONA Technologies PLC (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
Demmer, 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 to my knowledge:

        (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.


By: /s/ Daniel Demmer
   ---------------------------------
     Daniel Demmer
     Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 20, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification Pursuant


to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:









The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended July 3, 2010 (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: August 11, 2010


/s/ Robert G. Burton, Sr.


Robert G. Burton, Sr.


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





Date: August 11, 2010


/s/ Mark S. Hiltwein


Mark S. Hiltwein


Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Cenveo, Inc. and will be retained by Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 21.01
 
                             RWD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 
                                RWD Subsidiaries
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Subsidiary Name/
   Jurisdiction of Incorporation    Registration/Company No.    Date Formed
   -----------------------------    ------------------------ ------------------
<S>                                 <C>                      <C>
RWD Technologies UK Limited United
 Kingdom...........................           03314693         February 3, 1997
RWD Mexico, S. de R.L. Mexico......       RME970423BF7           April 23, 1997
RWD Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
 Australia.........................        079 969 930        September 4, 1997
RWD Holdings LLC United States.....           W5067707          August 21, 1998
RWD Technologies Belgium B.V.B.A
 Belgium...........................            630.501       September 15, 1998
</TABLE>
 
                                       40
#### STATE ex rel. Kirk A. BAHAM v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1867.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Baham, Kirk A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 419-715; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2006-K-272, 2004-K-0876.

Denied on the merits.
News United States Air Force
 Yokota's pest controlPublished Jan. 7, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Delano Scott
                        
                        
                        374th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                The role of entomology Airmen is far reaching; from performing disease vector surveillance to providing base-wide pest control services for insects and wildlife, these Airmen utilize both preventative and immediate response maintenance practices to ensure that facilities remain pest free.Entomology's preventive maintenance program includes the monitoring of the 24 food facilities on Yokota Air Base, including the Yokota Community Center, Enlisted Club and Officers Club."We ensure that food facilities are pest free environments," said Staff Sgt. Brandon Cenarrusa, a 374th Civil Engineer Squadron pest management craftsman. "We also help assist public health with sanitation of any potential issues at the facilities to mitigate potential human health diseases and hazards."Entomology Airmen employ many different eradication methods when approaching the variety of pests they encounter, including pesticides and baiting, although, identifying and repairing any infrastructure imperfections that may lead to pest, is the most effective."By sealing cracks and crevasses, fixing door jams and removing areas where insects can get in and out of facilities, we can eliminate problems before they occur," Cenarrusa said.Ensuring that all facilities practice effective sanitation procedures is another valuable method they use to prevent pests."Throughout our inspections, we provide recommendations to facility managers and individuals around the base to resolve any problematic areas that were the result of improper sanitation practices," said Staff Sgt. Joel Mendoza, a 374th CES pest management craftsman. "Insects require food, warmth and water to thrive. If we can eliminate those sources in unwanted areas, we can reduce and suppress insects that are being attracted to that area."In addition, the pest control Airmen have the responsibility of assisting with the Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard program."We have the responsibility of suppressing the presence of birds throughout the base," Cenarrussa said. "Because birds pose a potential threat to the safety of our aircrew and aircraft, we work alongside Wing Safety to ensure the threat is minimized."Entomologists also work to keep the airfield wildlife free by baiting and relocating animals such as weasels, feral cats and dogs."Yokota has its own unique challenges when it comes to pest eradication, but that's one of the reasons why I love my job," Cenarrusa said. "Every base you go to is unique, from the pest themselves to the climate and methods of control, there is always an opportunity to learn new things in the career field."Yokota AB 



Japan 



PACAF 



pest control