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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1774

In Re: ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isidoro Rodriguez, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Isidoro Rodriguez filed this mandamus petition requesting that

this Court compel the district court to reinstate his complaint,

order discovery, convene a jury to determine the facts and to

comply with Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

the Inter-American Convention on Letters of Rogatory, 14 Int’l

Legal Materials. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in

extraordinary circumstances. 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, 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, 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

entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied

Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Because Rodriguez has not shown that there is not an available

remedy or that he is entitled to the requested relief, we deny his

petition for 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Virtual NLMC A Success and Lesson In Modern Flexibility - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3tjaQehUDR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-virtual-nlmc-a-success-and-lesson-in-modern-flexibility\/\">FMCS Virtual NLMC A Success and Lesson In Modern Flexibility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-virtual-nlmc-a-success-and-lesson-in-modern-flexibility\/embed\/#?secret=3tjaQehUDR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Virtual NLMC A Success and Lesson In Modern Flexibility” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"3tjaQehUDR\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C. (Aug. 20, 2020) \u2013 The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) concluded their biennial National Labor-Management Conference (NLMC) yesterday as a 100-percent virtual event. FMCS announced in May that the event, originally scheduled in person in Chicago over three days, would be conducted entirely as two-day online conference due to COVID-19 precautions to […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/NLMC-Photo-1-300x174.jpg"}
Exhibit 32.2

                    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 Quarterly Report of BF Acquisition
Group  V,  Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for  the  period
ending  July  31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of
2002, 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: September 20, 2004


                                    /s/ William Colucci
                                    --------------------------------
                                    William Colucci, Treasurer
                                    BF Acquisition Group V, Inc.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Events - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KiG2uFVLZn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/resources\/fmcs-events\/\">FMCS Events<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/resources\/fmcs-events\/embed\/#?secret=KiG2uFVLZn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Events” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"KiG2uFVLZn\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
HemaCare Corporation

                                EXHIBIT 11

              Net Income per Common and Common Equivalent Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Year Ended
                                                   December 31,
                                           ---------------------------
                                              2000           1999
                                           -----------    ------------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>
             BASIC
             -----
Weighted average common shares used
  to compute basic earnings per
  share...............................       7,566,800      7,393,001
                                           ===========    ============

                   Net income..........    $4,350,000     $ 1,057,000
                                           ===========    ============

Basic net income per share.............    $     0.57     $      0.14
                                           ===========    ============

             DILUTED
             -------
Weighted average common shares used to
  compute basic earnings per share....      7,566,800      7,393,001
                                           ===========    ===========

Dilutive preferred equivalent shares..        464,481        500,000
Dilutive common equivalent shares
  attributable to stock options
  (based on average market price).....        703,714        243,680
Dilutive common equivalent shares
 attributable to warrants (based on
 average market price)...............          40,532         20,838
                                           -----------    -----------
Weighted average common shares and
 equivalents used to compute
 diluted earnings per share..........       8,775,527      8,157,519
                                           ===========    ===========

               Net income...........       $4,350,000     $1,057,000
                                           ===========    ===========

Diluted net income per share ......        $     0.50     $     0.13
                                           ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*May 30, 2014*

[Cite as *05130/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-2296.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2013- 1102.

#### Cincinnati v. Ilg.

Hamilton App. No. C-120667, 2013-Ohio-2191. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

Upon consideration of the motions to participate in oral argument, scheduled for June 11, 2014, of amici curiae National College for DUI Defense and Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, it is ordered by the court that the motions are granted. Amici shall share the time allotted to appellee.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-16801 and 333-43231) of Continucare Corporation and in the
related Prospectuses, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44431)
pertaining to the Continucare Corporation Amended and Restated 1995 Stock
Option Plan, of our report dated October 6, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Continucare Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 1999.



                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Miami, Florida
October 11, 1999
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00897

- CV

In the Interest of D.E.P. , a Child
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 00219 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene R ios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 8, 2019

AFFIRMED
In this appeal, a ppellant challenges the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental right s
to his child, D.E.P. A ppellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he discuss es the
applicable law and evaluat es the record in this case

. In counsel’s professional opinion , this appeal

is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967)

. S ee In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (noting Anders procedures apply
in parental termination cases)

. Additionally, c ounsel certifie d that he provided appellant a copy of

the brief and informed appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant

did not file a pro se brief.

We ha ve conducted an independent review of the record and agree this appeal is frivolous

and without merit. Accordingly, t he trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Irene Rios, Justice
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Labor-Management Grants Program Accepts Applications for FY 2018 - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cUPW6nnQWj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-labor-management-grants-program-accepts-applications-fy-2018\/\">FMCS Labor-Management Grants Program Accepts Applications for FY 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-labor-management-grants-program-accepts-applications-fy-2018\/embed\/#?secret=cUPW6nnQWj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Labor-Management Grants Program Accepts Applications for FY 2018” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"cUPW6nnQWj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, DC\u2013 The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) has opened its labor-management grants application period for fiscal year 2018 and is encouraging grant applications focused on building a skilled workforce in every segment of the U.S. economy where employers have experienced difficulties in filling available good-paying jobs requiring specialized training and new skill sets. […]"}
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3182 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3182

To provide that inclined sleepers for infants and crib bumpers shall be 
 considered banned hazardous products under section 8 of the Consumer 
              Product Safety Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2021

Mr. Cardenas (for himself and Ms. Schakowsky) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that inclined sleepers for infants and crib bumpers shall be 
 considered banned hazardous products under section 8 of the Consumer 
              Product Safety Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. BANNING OF INCLINED SLEEPERS FOR INFANTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, inclined sleepers for infants, regardless of the 
date of manufacture, shall be considered a banned hazardous product 
under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057).
    (b) Inclined Sleeper for Infants Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``inclined sleeper for infants'' means a product with an inclined 
sleep surface greater than ten degrees that is intended, marketed, or 
designed to provide sleeping accommodations for an infant up to 1 year 
old.

SEC. 3. BANNING OF CRIB BUMPERS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, crib bumpers, regardless of the date of 
manufacture, shall be considered a banned hazardous product under 
section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057).
    (b) Crib Bumper Defined.--In this section, the term ``crib 
bumper''--
            (1) means any material that is intended to cover the sides 
        of a crib to prevent injury to any crib occupant from impacts 
        against the side of a crib or to prevent partial or complete 
        access to any openings in the sides of a crib to prevent a crib 
        occupant from getting any part of the body entrapped in any 
        opening;
            (2) includes a padded crib bumper, a supported and 
        unsupported vinyl bumper guard, and vertical crib slat covers; 
        and
            (3) does not include a non-padded mesh crib liner.
                                 <all>
```
73 A.3d 575

#### Derrald HANDY, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 20, 2013.

*105Mr. Derrald Handy, Pro Se, appellant.

Chad L. Allensworth, Esq., PA Board of Probation & Parole, Harrisburg, for Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2013, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         455,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,562,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                    76,188
<INVENTORY>                                    825,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,778,889
<PP&E>                                       3,742,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,242,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,669,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,032,922
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,522
<OTHER-SE>                                     381,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,669,967
<SALES>                                      6,561,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,561,229
<CGS>                                        5,251,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,251,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               974,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             159,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            175,726
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   175,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
# January 2024 F7 Notices
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Auborn Frank SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-6965.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 80, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.

Auborn Frank Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*836PER CURIAM:

Auborn Frank Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 certifícate 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 standard 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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.*