alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted , Stay Lifted, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 5 , 2023.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00488

- CV

IN RE EXXON MOBIL CORP., EXXON MOBIL OIL CORP., & EXXON MOBIL RESEARCH & ENGI NEERING CO. , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDA MUS 334th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- 13735



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 14, 2023 , relator s Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., & Exxon Mobil Research & Engin eering Co. filed a petition for writ of m andamus in2 this Co urt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P . 52. In the petition, relator s ask this Court to compel the Honorable Dawn Rogers, presiding judge of the 334th District Court of H arris C ounty , to vacate the trial

court ’ s J une 26, 2023 order gr anting pla intiff s ’ motion to compel production of “22
docum ent categories withing 21 days of the date of the order (Monday, July 17, 2023).”
Relators also filed an emergency motion for tempora ry stay of proceedings below, which the Co urt granted on J uly 17 , 2023.

On September 29, 2023, relators and real parties in interest filed a joint
motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus

. The parties ’ joint motion to dismiss is granted.

W e d is miss re l ator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus as moot

. Additionally,

our July 17 , 2023 stay is lifted.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 668 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 668

   To provide enhanced criminal penalties for willful violations of 
                  occupational standards for asbestos.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide enhanced criminal penalties for willful violations of 
                  occupational standards for asbestos.

    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 ``Asbestos Standards Enforcement Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF 
              OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ASBESTOS.

    Section 17(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 656(e)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Any'' and inserting ``(1) Except as 
        provided in paragraph (2), any''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Any employer who willfully violates any standard issued under 
section 6 with respect to the control of occupational exposure to 
asbestos, shall upon conviction be punished by a fine in accordance 
with section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, or by imprisonment 
for not more than 5 years, or both, except that if the conviction is 
for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, 
punishment shall be by a fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 
18, United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, 
or both.''.
                                 <all>
```
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Peace, Appellant, v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance 

Company, Appellee. 

[Cite as Peace v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (1993), 

Ohio St.3d .] 

Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death 

 claim -- Each person entitled to recover under R.C.2125.02 

 has separate claim subject to any per accident limit -- 

 Each person who is covered by an uninsured/underinsured 

 policy has a separate claim subject to a per person policy 

 limit. 

 (No. 93-1716 -- Submitted November 9, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Erie County, No. 

E-92-60. 

 

 Ronald G. Kaufman, for appellant. 

 Flynn, Py & Kruse, L.P.A., James W. Hart and R.E. Digges 

III, for appellee. 

 The motion to certify the record is granted and the cause 

is reversed and remanded on authority of Savoie v. Grange Mut. 

Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, N.E.2d . 

 A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., 

concur. 

 Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. 

 Wright, J., dissents. 

 Resnick, J., not participating. 

 Moyer, C.J., concurring separately. I concur separately 

in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent 

in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 

500, N.E.2d , stated, I do not agree with the law 

announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the 

law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all 

parties should receive equal application of the law announced 

by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the 

judgment entry. 

 Wright, J., dissenting. I must dissent in continuing 

protest to the majority's sundry holdings in Savoie v. Grange 
Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. As 

stated in the dissent in Savoie, that holding lacks sound 

reasoning, reverses ten years of established case law and 

flaunts the will of the General Assembly. Thus, I feel 

compelled to remain in this posture until the General Assembly 

has had the opportunity to undo the damage caused to the public 

by this unfortunate, result-oriented decision.
Exhibit 32.2

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

            I, J. Reid Porter, the Chief Financial Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2004 of IMC Global Inc. fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMC Global Inc.

May 7, 2004 

        J. Reid Porter              J. Reid Porter

 

*Return to IMC Global Inc. Form 10-Q*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent G. OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6959.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 20, 2006.

Vincent G. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Vincent G. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Osborne 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Samuel JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-6724.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 6, 2009.

Decided: May 21, 2009.

Ronald Samuel Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pagel, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpubhshed PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpubhshed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Samuel Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable un*221less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### James River Equip., Inc. v. Mecklenburg Utils., Inc.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 414

No. 540P06

1. Def’s (Mecklenburg Utilities) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-622)

2. Pit’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question

3. Def’s (Orange County BOE) Motion to Dismiss Appeal

4. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

5. Def’s (Orange County BOE) Conditional PDR

1. Denied 03/08/07

2. _

3. Allowed 03/08/07

4. Denied 03/08/07

5. Dismissed as Moot 03/08/07

Hudson, J., Recused
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                                    304
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          36,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,685
<INVENTORY>                                            24,716
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       66,052
<PP&E>                                                 29,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                         17,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        219,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 103,361
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 2
<COMMON>                                                  937
<OTHER-SE>                                             85,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          219,160
<SALES>                                               140,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      140,480
<CGS>                                                 101,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         132,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        (217)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      9,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (1,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (197)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         (225)
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (1,531)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.16)



</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of-- SEMI USA Corporation Under Contract No. NNG13AZ04C APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 61864, 62074

Laurence Schor, Esq. Caitlin E. Trevillyan, Esq.

Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC Washington, DC Scott W. Barber, Esq.

NASA ChiefTrial Attorney James A. Vatne, Esq. AmberM. Hufft, Esq.

Trial Attorneys Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE D'ALESSANDRIS It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the parties' stipulation and agreement, that the appeals are sustained. In the nature ofa consentjudgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $1,250,000. This amount is inclusive ofinterest. No further interest shall bepaid.
Dated: November 15, 2019

(Signatures continued) DA YID D'ALESSANDRIS Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI concur 

# M
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I concur

J. REID PROUTY Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61864, 62074, Appeals of SEMI USA Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
# Recall 15E-041 - SPI Inflator

                                                                          Download file:                       Recall 15E-041 - SPI Inflator
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[TYPE]     EX-27
[TEXT]
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,320
<INVENTORY>                                     14,634
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,669
<PP&E>                                         323,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                 305,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          327,016
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    710,000
<COMMON>                                     5,992,961
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,256
<SALES>                                        531,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               531,623
<CGS>                                          459,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,526)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Drug-Impaired Driving Criminal Justice Evaluation Tool


Share:
  Facebook
  Twitter
  LinkedIn
  Mail




		The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is engaged in numerous activities to reduce drug-impaired driving, including conducting research and developing tools, resources, and promising practices to assist states and local communities. To aid in evaluating efforts to address drug-impaired driving, NHTSA has developed the Drug-Impaired Driving Criminal Justice Evaluation Tool. The tool is designed to assist with identifying program strengths and opportunities for improvements.

 
  
Drug-Impaired Driving Criminal Justice Evaluation Tool
				Download Tool (Excel, 82KB)

 
  More Resources

Reducing Drug-Impaired Driving Webinar PowerPoint
	Traffic Safety Marketing
	NHTSA.gov/Drug-Impaired-Driving
	Law Enforcement Training
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
#### Mohammed Anowar HOSSAIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74203.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 4, 2006.

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Vera A. Weisz, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Kristin K. Edison, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Robert C. Jones, District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Mohammed Anowar Hossain petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (IJ) *160decision to deny his claims of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We omit the relevant facts as they are known to the parties.

Hossain claims that he is eligible for asylum because he suffered persecution in his native Bangladesh because he is a Bihari Shiite Muslim. We hold that the evidence of record does not compel a finding that Hossain was subject to past persecution. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Hossain’s claims of past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution are based on instances regarding which Hossain’s testimony was highly vague, lacking any specificity in dates and details. He thus has not offered *“specific*facts that give rise to an inference that the applicant has been or has a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution on one of the specified grounds----” *Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS,*767 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, with regard to his fear of future persecution, Hossain’s immediate family members continue to reside in Bangladesh without incident. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that he is eligible for asylum. *See Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. at 481 *&*n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812.

With respect to Hossain’s claim for eligibility for relief under CAT, we find that the claim has been waived. Hossain fails specifically to argue the issue. *See United States v. Viramontes-Alvarado,*149 F.3d 912, 916 n. 2 (9th Cir.1998).

Finally, Hossain raises his due process claim for the first time on appeal. Since he failed to present this issue to the BIA, we dismiss Hossain’s due process claim for lack of jurisdiction for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the reasoning of the IJ, and thus, we review the decision of the IJ directly. *Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2004).