alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D.M., Petitioner, v. GOPHER MINING COMPANY; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.

No. 08-1088.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

D.M., Petitioner Pro Se. Francesca Tan, Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Helen Hart Cox, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Betty English, Office of the Solicitor General, Patricia May Nece, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

D.M. seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for the reasons stated by the Board. *D.M. v. Gopher Mining Co.,*No. 07-0155-BLA (Aug. 29, 2007). 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.*
#### THUNDERBIRD HOTELS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; Sam Adams, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the City of Portland, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-35025.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.

Filed Nov. 23, 2010.

John Randall Dudrey, Donald R. Stark, Michael D. Williams, Williams Fredrick-son, LLC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tracy Pool Reeve, Esquire, Terence L. Thatcher, Office of the City Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable James P. Jones, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The district court dismissed Thunderbird Hotels’ state and federal takings claims as not ripe. We affirm.

1. *State law takings claim.*Oregon law requires that there be “a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property” before a takings claim is ripe for review. *Joyce v. Multnomah Cnty.,*114 Or.App. 244, 835 P.2d 127, 128 (1992) (quoting *MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo Cnty.,*477 U.S. 340, 348, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986)). Thunderbird has not applied for permission to develop its Hayden Island parcel and has not identified any City of Portland regulation that currently restricts development. Because the scope of the alleged restriction on Thunderbird’s development rights is not clear, Thunderbird’s state-law takings claim is not ripe.

2. *Federal takings claim.*Thunderbird has not satisfied either of the ripeness *250requirements articulated in *Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank,*473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). First, because Thunderbird has made no development application, the scope of any restriction the City may have placed on Thunderbird’s property is unclear. There has thus been no “final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” *Williamson,*473 U.S. at 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108. Second, Thunderbird has not given the state “the opportunity to deny with finality just compensation for [the] alleged taking” in a state judicial or administrative proceeding before bringing a federal takings claim. *West Linn Corp. Park L.L.C. v. City of West Linn,*534 F.3d 1091, 1093 (9th Cir.2008). Thunderbird’s appeal of the City’s temporary development moratorium to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals did not present such an opportunity because Thunderbird did not raise its constitutional claim in that proceeding. The district court’s dismissal of Thunderbird’s state-law takings claim did not satisfy the second *Williamson*requirement either, because the dismissal was without prejudice and did not reach the merits. Thunderbird’s federal takings claim is therefore not ripe for review.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In re: Saleem PORTER, Petitioner.

No. 10-1568.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

Saleem Porter, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

*798Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Saleem Porter petitions for a writ of prohibition, seeking an order preventing District Judge Richard L. Williams from punishing him for any violation of his supervised release. Porter argues that he should not have to serve any term of supervised release because, he alleges, the district court failed to inform him about supervised release at his guilty plea hearing. We conclude Porter is not entitled to relief.

A writ of prohibition should not issue unless it “clearly appears that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction.” *Smith v. Whitney,*116 U.S. 167, 176, 6 S.Ct. 570, 29 L.Ed. 601 (1886). Because it is a drastic remedy, a writ of prohibition should only be granted when the petitioner’s right to the requested rehef is clear and indisputable, *In re Vargas,*723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983); *In re Missouri,*664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir.1981), and there are no other adequate means of relief. *In re Bankers Trust Co.,*775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir.1985). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for the normal appellate process. *Missouri,*664 F.2d at 180.

The record reveals that Porter has filed in the district court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis contesting the imposition of his term of supervised release. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Porter’s petition for a writ of prohibition. 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.*
#### Basil AKBAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7266.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.

Basil Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*734Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Basil Akbar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. 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 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 petition 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 Akbar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.*
EXHIBIT
      32.3


CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 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), the undersigned
      officer of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2007 (the “Form
      10-K”) 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.











Date:  November
                19, 2007
            /s/
                Richard A. CogdillRichard
                A. CogdillChief
                Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Sylvester Wayne WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS and United States, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2011-1072.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 6, 2010.

Jeanne E. Davidson, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Sylvester Wayne Williams, San Diego, CA, pro se.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of Sylvester Wayne Williams’ motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal,

It Is Ordered That:

*472(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3175 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Robert S. McKeithen 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2021 

Mr. PALAZZO (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. GUEST, and Mr. 

THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mississippi, as 

the ‘‘Robert S. McKeithen Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT S. MCKEITHEN POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mis7 sissippi, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert S. 

8 McKeithen Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3175 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert S. McKeithen 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995 TOGETHER WITH AUDITORS REPORT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,196,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  457,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                    275,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,857,204
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,857,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,257,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,600,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,857,204
<SALES>                                      2,503,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,503,506
<CGS>                                        2,345,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,345,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               101,971
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,281,250)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,282,050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,282,050)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31829]



[[Page 66982]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit 
Review Board, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) as amended, by section 5(c) of 
Public Law 94-409 that a meeting of the Rehabilitation Research and 
Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will be held at the 
Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1001 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC on January 23-
24, 2002.
    The sessions on January 23-24, 2002, are scheduled to begin at 8:00 
a.m. and end at 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to review 
rehabilitation research and development applications for scientific and 
technical merit and to make recommendations to the Director, 
Rehabilitation and Development Service, regarding their funding.
    The meeting will be open to the public for the January 23 session 
from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. for the discussion of administrative 
matters, the general status of the program, and the administrative 
details of the review process. On January 23 from 9:00 a.m. through 
January 24, 2002, the meeting is closed during which the Board will be 
reviewing research and development applications.
    This review involves oral comments, discussion of site visits, 
staff and consultant critiques of proposed research protocols, and 
similar analytical documents that necessitate the consideration of the 
personal qualifications, performance and competence of individual 
research investigators. Disclosure of such information would constitute 
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Disclosure would 
also reveal research proposals and research underway which could lead 
to the loss of these projects to third parties and thereby frustrate 
future agency research efforts.
    Thus, the closing is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), and 
(c)(9)(B) and the determination of the Secretary of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs under Sections 10(d) of Public Law 92-92-463 as 
amended by Section 5(c) of Public Law 94-409.
    Those who plan to attend the open session should write to Ms. 
Victoria Mongiardo, Program Analyst, Rehabilitation Research and 
Development Service (122P), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420 (Phone: 202-408-3684) at least five days 
before the meeting.

    Dated: December 17, 2001.

    By the Direction of the Secretary.
Nora E. Egan,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-31829 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 97-1837

___________

Victor Orlowski, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

Sharon Orlowski, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

Milton Morrison; Roger Morrison; *

Richard Morrison; Kenneth Morrison; *

Susan M. Morrison Roberts; Gretchen *

Roberts; Robert Foersterling, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

*

___________

Appeals from the United States

Nos. 97-3990 District Court for the

___________ Eastern District of Missouri.

Victor Orlowski; Sharon Orlowski, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

v. *

*

Milton Morrison; Roger Morrison; *

Richard Morrison; Kenneth Morrison; *

Susan M. Morrison Roberts; Gretchen *
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

Roberts, *

Defendants, *

*

Robert Foersterling, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 1998

Filed: June 2, 1998

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victor and Sharon Orlowski filed this diversity action against the defendants

after disputes arose related to their business arrangements. The district court granted 1

summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, and the Orlowskis sought to amend

their complaint against the Morrisons. The district court withdrew permission to file

an amended complaint after a chambers conference revealed that the Morrisons had not

agreed to the amendment, contrary to the representations of the plaintiffs. The

Orlowskis now appeal from the judgments in favor of the defendants and the denial of

leave to amend their complaint. After a careful review of the record, we find no error

and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Motor Carrier Safety Progress Report

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(as of September 30, 2005)

SAFETY OUTCOMES 2002 2003 2004 

● Large Truck Fatalities 4,939 4,986 5,190 

● Large Truck Fatality Rate (per 100 million truck vehicle miles traveled) 2.3 2.3 * 

● Intercity Bus Fatalities 54 36 58 

● Large Truck Injuries 130,000 122,000 116,000 

● Large Truck Injury Rate (per 100 million truck vehicle miles traveled) 60.5 56.6 * 

Sources: NHTSA (fatalities and injuries), FHWA (vehicle miles traveled). *Data not available.

DATA QUALITY 2003 2004

ACCURACY

● Percentage of FMCSA reported crashes matched to a carrier 86% 87% 

● Percentage of FMCSA reported inspections matched to a carrier 96% 97% 

TIMELINESS

● Average time to upload a crash to FMCSA 136 days 84 days 

● Average time to upload an inspection to FMCSA 26 days 15 days 

COMPLETENESS

● Percentage of fatal crashes reported to FMCSA 93% 92%

PROGRAM OUTPUTS FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 

INCREASING ENFORCEMENT

● Number of Federal Compliance Reviews 9,068 7,637 7,943 

● Number of State Compliance Reviews 3,744 3,745 4,560 

● Number of enforcement cases initiated 5,753 5,192 4,427 

 - Unsat/Unfit out-of-service orders 316 415 596 

● Roadside inspections, trucks 2,991,788 2,946,630 2,887,837 

● Roadside inspections, buses 42,377 42,790 47,467 

● States participating in PRISM 25 37 42 

INCREASING SAFETY AND SECURITY AWARENESS

● New Entrant Safety Audits: 

 - Total 7,205 25,316 33,720** 

 - Federal 4,119 10,013 10,065 

 - State 2,998 15,031 22,091 

 - Seminar 88 272 567 

● ITS-CVO: Number of Federal, State, 

and industry attendees at briefings 2,703 2,205 1,235 

● Web site visits to Analysis and 

Information (A&I) Online 935,865 1,417,701 1,674,741 

● HM Security Sensitivity Visits (SSVs) 1,797 1,476 2,378 

● Federal/State personnel training: 

 - For Compliance Reviews 93 93 176 

 - For roadside inspections 2,790 3,586 3,793 

 - For hazardous materials 1,906 2,611 2,149 

 - For in-service 199 1,332 1,910 

IMPROVING SAFETY INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

● States participating in CVISN 

 (In Planning, Design, Deployment) 7, 6, 34 8, 3, 31 8, 1, 33 

● States that have completed 

 Core CVISN Capability Deployment 4 9 9 

RULEMAKINGS (July-September 2005) 

● Transportation of Household Goods; RIN 2126-AA32; FMCSA-1997-2979; Consumer Protection Regulations; Final Rule (July 12, 2005). 

● Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; RIN 2126-AA61; FMCSA-1997-2364; General Amendments; Final Rule (August 15, 2005). 

● Hours of Service of Drivers; RIN 2126-AA90; FMCSA-2004-19608; Final Rule (August 25, 2005). 

**Includes safety audits conducted by contractors.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                          94,998
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                       454
<INVENTORY>                                     13,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,753
<PP&E>                                          23,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                     126,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,239
<SALES>                                         24,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,233
<CGS>                                           23,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,078)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,588)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,588)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,588)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.36)


</TABLE>
73 A.3d 522

#### Cecil HOLMES, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA., Respondent.

No. 70 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 31, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED. To the extent the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief requests extraordinary relief, it is DENIED. To the extent the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordi*16nary Relief requests mandamus relief, it is GRANTED. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is directed to dispose of Petitioner’s pending petition for writ of *habeas corpus*within 90 days of this order.