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

- 147 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 23

- 1443

___________ IN RE: CHARLES J. SENKE,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to 3:16

- cr
- 00373

- 001)

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

May 25, 2023
Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and SCIRICA , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 7, 2023 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Charles Senke is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at FCI

- Allenwood. Senke petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the
M iddle District of Pennsylvania to adjudicate his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.Senke filed the § 2255 motion in February 2022, and the Government filed its

response in April 2022. Senke filed a brief i n support of the motion in May 2022. The motion is still pending in the District Court. “Traditionally, the writ of mandamus has been used to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its au thority when it is its duty to do so.” In re Chambers Dev. Co. , 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) ( quotation marks omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that is seldom issued and its use is discouraged.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). We may issue a w rit of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). We will deny the petition. After Senke filed his mandamus petition in this Court,
the District Co urt entered an order directing the Government to provide a substantive response to Senke’s May 2022 brief. 1 Therefore, the District Court is moving forward with the case, and we are confident that it will adjudicate his pending § 2255 motion in a timely manner. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

1 The Government’s reply is currently due June 14, 2023.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (80)
<INVENTORY>                                     27,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,730
<PP&E>                                          19,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,938
<SALES>                                         52,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,685
<CGS>                                           30,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (106)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,672
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,093
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,093
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
#### UNION COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF CYNTHIA DICKENS v. ARTHUR JACKSON.

December 8, 1987.

Motion of the Department of Human Services, Division of Public Welfare, for summary disposition is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the judgment of the Appellate Division is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with *Bowen v. Gilliard,*483 *U.S.*-, 107 *S.Ct.*3008, 97 *L.Ed.2d*485 (1987).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
585 A.2d 395

#### WILLIAM BELL v. MERCHANTS AND BUSINESSMEN’S MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*557, 575 A.2d 878)
–

Mine Rescue Team Training: 

MSHA’s Underground Communication & 

Tracking System 

MSHA Technical Support Mine Emergency Operations 

Training Opportunity 

The Mine Emergency Operations (MEO) Division of MSHA Technical Support is providing training 

opportunities to all Mine Rescue Teams. The training showcases the features, setup and operation of MSHA’s 

Underground Communication and Tracking System (UCS). This training is intended to familiarize mine 

rescue personnel with the deployment and utilization of the system during a mine emergency. MSHA 

believes providing the Nation’s Mine Rescue Teams with a fundamental knowledge of this system will 

enhance Emergency Preparedness by facilitating effective, rapid deployments of underground 

communication equipment. 

Participation is voluntary and the training can be scheduled to coincide with your regularly scheduled practice and 

tailored to fit your allotted timeframes. The initial training for team members covers basic system component setup and 

system functionality with opportunities for “hands-on” interaction with the system. Advanced training is also available 

and covers the more technically advanced capabilities of the system. A full, underground deployment of the system can 

be incorporated into either training. 

Please contact the MEO station nearest you with questions or to schedule a training exercise. 

MEO Stations and Contact 

Information: 

• Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology 

Center Attn: Dave Leverknight, 412-386-6357, 

leverknight.david@dol.gov 

• Madisonville KY Mine Rescue Station 

Attn: Nathan Mounts, 270-821-9339, 

mounts.nathan@dol.gov 

Attn: Kenny Garrett, 270-821-9504, 

garrett.kenneth@dol.gov 

• National Mine Health and Safety Academy 

Attn: Joey Wolford, 304-256-3331, 

wolford.joey@dol.gov

Attn: Shane McPherson, 304-256-3198,

mcpherson.bobby.s@dol.gov

• Denver CO Federal Center 

Attn: VACANT

• Price UT MSHA Field Office 

Attn: Russ Bloomer, 385-707-8671, 

bloomer.russell@dol.gov 

Attn: Thomas Barrington, 385-707-8672, 

barrington.thomas@dol.gov 

UCS Basic System Components
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT BURNEY.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 411

#### ANNETTA CROWLEY v. ADAMUCCI OIL COMPANY.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John GREEN.

No. 2011-KK-0069.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 10, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 487-028; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0028.

Writ granted. The trial court’s ruling is reinstated.

JOHNSON, WEIMER and CLARK, JJ., would deny the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10K at
June 30, 1998 and is Qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      13,772,537
<SECURITIES>                                 7,877,937
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,220,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,520,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,762,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            69,570,417
<PP&E>                                     187,378,609
<DEPRECIATION>                              87,491,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             206,485,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,187,928
<BONDS>                                    157,925,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,919,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               206,485,301
<SALES>                                     58,844,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           261,918,194
<CGS>                                       51,268,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              238,726,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,243,810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,751,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,730,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,614,597)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,224,453)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (10,345,384)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,120,931)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Palmer *v.*Stockberger et al.

[No. 19,851.

Filed November 21, 1963.]

*Kizer & Neu,*of Plymouth, for appellant.

*Stevens & Wampler,*of Plymouth, for appellee, Stockberger.

*Donald K. Travis,*of Plymouth, for appellee, William J. Hepler.

Mote, C. J.

— Appellee, Wayne Stockberger, instituted this suit in the trial court where he asked recovery of unpaid wages, expenses, liquidated damages and attorney fees.

The trial court awarded appellee Stockberger judgment in the sum of two hundred and eighty-nine ($289.00) dollars which included one hundred and eight dollars and fifty cents ($108.50) for unpaid wages, one hundred and eight dollars and fifty cents ($108.50) for liquidated damages and attorney fees in the amount of seventy-two ($72.00) dollars.

Appellant then commenced this appeal and asks this court to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial.

*405It appears that the same persons, the same issues, and the same pattern of facts are involved in this case as were involved in the case of *Charles Palmer*v. *Kenneth Stockberger,*No. 19852, which was recently decided by this court. It was held therein that liquidated damages and attorney fees were improperly awarded, and a remittitur was ordered; however, that portion of the judgment pertaining to unpaid wages and expenses was upheld.

In the instant case, however, there was no award for expenses; therefore, we are concerned only with unpaid wages, liquidated damages and attorney fees.

On authority of the case of *Charles Palmer*v. *Kenneth Stockberger, supra,*we arrive at the same conclusion. The remittitur required, however, is in a different sum. Hence, a remittitur in the sum of one hundred and eighty dollars and fifty cents ($180.50), which includes the amount of one hundred and eight dollars and fifty cents ($108.50) for liquidated damages, and the amount of seventy-two ($72.00) dollars attorney fees, is hereby ordered. If such remittitur is filed within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, the judgment as so remitted is affirmed; otherwise, it is reversed with instructions to the trial court to grant a new trial.

Hunter, Kelley and Pfaff, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 193 N. E. 2d 916.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 886 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 886

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to permit dependents of retired members of the Armed Forces who 
 reside in military housing to attend Department of Defense elementary 
                         and secondary schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2017

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to permit dependents of retired members of the Armed Forces who 
 reside in military housing to attend Department of Defense elementary 
                         and secondary schools.

    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 ``Continuity of Education for Military 
Retired Dependents Act''.

SEC. 2. EDUCATION FOR DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES.

    Section 2164(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by inserting ``, dependents of retirees,'' 
                after ``dependents of members of the armed forces''; 
                and
                    (B) by inserting ``and the dependents of such 
                retirees'' after ``such members of the armed forces''; 
                and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `retiree' means a 
member or former member of the armed forces who is entitled to retired 
or retainer pay under this title, or who, but for age, would be 
eligible for retired or retainer pay under chapter 1223 of this 
title.''.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

RATIFICATION ORDER 

In our capacity as Members of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"), we hereby 

ratify, under terms and conditions prescribed in 5 U.S.C. § 3344 and 5 C.F.R. § 930.208, the 

following agreements providing for loaned administrative law judges ("ALJs"): 

• Interagency Agreement Between the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the United 

States Coast Guard (FYI 8) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

US. Merit Systems Protection Board (FYI 8) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FYI8) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Coast Guard and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FYI 9) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal J:rade Commission and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FYI 9) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Coast Guard and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FY20) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FY20) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Coast Guard and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FY2 I) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FY21) 
• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FY22) 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Coast Guard and the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (FY22) 

Further, in this same capacity and under these same terms and conditions, we today approve 

the loan and appointment of ALJs under these MOUs as our O\yn action under the Article II of 

the Constitution. 

~~~ ~ Limon 

Vice Chai1;)1an ang Acting Chairman 

s:l'-1 j I ci 

DATE 

~~~====~----- ~ -Leavitt 

Member 

3/1/rz-zDATE
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6432** 

ANTHONY LEO WHITE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DAVID HOYLE, N.C. Department of Revenue Secretary; CALE JOHNSON, Supervisor N.C. DOR Unauthorized Substances Tax Division; DAVID WARLICK, Agent N.C. DOR Unauthorized Substances Tax Division; DONNIE DELLINGER, Burke Co. Narcotics Task Force Investigator; RICK HASSON, Sgt. Burke County Narcotics Task Force , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv
- 00117

- RJC )

Submitted : July 24, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Anthony Leo White , Appellant Pro Se. David Dalton Lennon , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA , Raleigh, North Carolina; Christopher J. Geis , WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC , Winston

- Salem, North Ca rolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Leo White appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the rec ord and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See White v. Hoyle , No. 1:11

- cv
- 00117

- RJC
(W.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 7201]

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including under section 7076(d)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, P.L. 111-117) (“the Act”), I hereby waive the requirement in section 7076(d)(2) of the Act to certify that the Government of Afghanistan is cooperating fully with United States efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and to reduce poppy cultivation and illicit drug trafficking and report that it is vital to the national security interests of the United States to do so.

                    This waiver shall be reported to the Congress promptly and published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Dated: September 28, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-25609 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-17-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       1,367,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,260,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,406,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   187,000
<INVENTORY>                                    341,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,158,000
<PP&E>                                       1,040,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 616,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,444,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,350,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,047,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,444,000
<SALES>                                      1,298,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,458,000
<CGS>                                        1,084,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,960,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                498,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   184,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            314,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   314,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        


</TABLE>