alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.223 Evaluation and revision of roof control plan. ( a ) Revisions of the roof control plan shall be proposed by the operator— ( 1 ) When conditions indicate that the plan is not suitable for controlling the roof, face, ribs, or coal or rock bursts; or
( 2 ) When accident and injury experience at the mine indicates the plan is inadequate. The accident and injury experience at each mine shall be reviewed at least every six months.
( b ) Each unplanned roof fall and rib fall and coal or rock burst that occurs in the active workings shall be plotted on a mine map if it— ( 1 ) Is above the anchorage zone where roof bolts are used;
( 2 ) Impairs ventilation;
( 3 ) Impedes passage of persons;
( 4 ) Causes miners to be withdrawn from the area affected; or
( 5 ) Disrupts regular mining activities for more than one hour.
( c ) The mine map on which roof falls are plotted shall be available at the mine site for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and representatives of miners at the mine.
( d ) The roof control plan for each mine shall be reviewed every six months by an authorized representative of the Secretary. This review shall take into consideration any falls of the roof, face and ribs and the adequacy of the support systems used at the time.
[53 FR 2375, Jan. 27, 1988; 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           40884
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            2983
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     118291
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          164603
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            166745
<LOANS>                                         800622
<ALLOWANCE>                                       7189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1172057
<DEPOSITS>                                      913350
<SHORT-TERM>                                     67365
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              10954
<LONG-TERM>                                      50694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         10230
<OTHER-SE>                                      119464
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1172057
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  70067
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                15956
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   526
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 86549
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               33041
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4902
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            48606
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     2704
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  42
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  29966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  24542
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       24542
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     16496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.90
<LOANS-NON>                                       2438
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1155
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   114
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  46386
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  6176
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     2584
<RECOVERIES>                                       514
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 7189
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              5255
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           1934
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 24, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00432

- CR

Rolando MENDOZA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court

, Bex ar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR9296

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On September 14, 2022, we issued an order noting that the court reporters in this case had

filed notifications of late record explaining that they had not filed the reporter’s records because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the court reporters’ fee for preparing the records and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We ordered appellant to show, by September 26, 2022, either: (1) the reporters’ fees had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the reporters’ fees; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporters’ fees. We cautioned appellant that if he f ailed to respond within the time provided, his brief would be due within thirty days from the date of the order, and the court would consider only those issues or points raised in his brief that did not require a reporter’s record for a

decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

Appellant did not respond to our September 14, 2022 order. Accordingly, his brief was due by October 14, 2022. On October 21, 2022, appellant filed his brief and a motion requesting an extension of time until October 26, 2022 to file the brief. After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s motion for extension of time and deem the brief timely filed as of October 21, 2022. Pursuant to our September 14, 2022 order, we will consider only those issues or points raised in appellan t’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision._________________________________ Beth Watk ins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of October, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30146

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN RAY JONES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:03-CR-50032-2

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Steven Ray Jones, federal prisoner # 11732-035, appeals the district

court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on

the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Jones contends that the district

court abused its discretion by not granting a reduction to the low end of the

recalculated guidelines range. He also contends that in light of § 3582(c)(2)’s

requirement that district courts consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), the district court’s failure to give reasons for the sentence imposed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-30146 Document: 00511086539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
No. 09-30146

constitutes a significant procedural error or, alternatively, an abuse of

discretion.

We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence for an abuse of

discretion and its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United

States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28,

2010) (No. 09-8939). In Evans, this court noted that because the district court

was under no obligation to reduce the defendant’s sentence at all, it was under

no obligation to reduce the sentence even further within the recalculated range.

Id. at 673. Further, the district court was not required to give reasons for its

granting the defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion but not selecting “a satisfactorily

low enough sentence within the recalculated range.” Id. at 674. Accordingly,

Jones’s contentions are foreclosed by Evans, and the district court did not abuse

its discretion. See id. at 672-74.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-30146 Document: 00511086539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
§ 90.101 Respirable dust standard when quartz is present. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 28482 , Apr. 18, 2024.
( a ) Each operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable quartz dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift to which a part 90 miner in the active workings of each mine is exposed at or below 0.1 mg/m3 (100 micrograms per cubic meter or μg/m3) as measured with an approved sampling device and expressed in terms of an equivalent concentration.
( b ) When the mine atmosphere of the active workings where the part 90 miner performs his or her normal work duties exceeds 100 μg/m3 of respirable quartz dust, the operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift to which a part 90 miner is exposed as measured with an approved sampling device and expressed in terms of an equivalent concentration at or below the applicable standard. The applicable standard is computed by dividing the percent of quartz into the number 10. The application of this formula shall not result in an applicable standard that exceeds the standards specified in § 90.100.
Example: Assume the part 90 miner is on a 0.5 mg/m3 dust standard. Suppose a valid representative dust sample with an equivalent concentration of 0.50 mg/m3 contains 25.6% of quartz dust, which corresponds to a quartz concentration of 128 μg/m3. Therefore, the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere associated with that part 90 miner shall be maintained on each shift at or below 0.4 mg/m3 (10/25.6% = 0.4 mg/m3).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 27, 2019

p1120 

# Order

Clerk November 27, 2019

157370

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 157370

COA: 325627

Wayne CC: 14

- 003019

- FC

FERNANDUS CORTEZ ELLEN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of July 3, 2018, the application f or leave to appeal the February 1, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v

Dixon

- Bey (Docket No. 156746). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been

denied in Dixon

- Bey on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is again

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

REVERSE the Court of Appeals judgment finding that the trial court failed to explain

why the extent of the guidelines departure was w arranted, and remanding this case to the

trial court for resentencing. The trial court adequately described the circumstances

surrounding the offense as being at the most serious end of the spectrum of manslaughter

cases and the defendant’s efforts to sil ence witnesses, thereby warranting the most severe

sentence permitted. The principle of proportionality was satisfied and the trial court did

not abuse its discretion.
### §§351 to 355. Repealed. Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §307, 69 Stat. 589

Section 351, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §401, as added Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 102, defined terms for purposes of this chapter.

A prior section 351, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §401, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 147, authorized appropriations for purposes of this chapter and was repealed by act Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 96.

Section 352, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §402, as added Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 102; amended Sept. 29, 1950, ch. 1112, §2, 64 Stat. 1083, related to free postage.

A prior section 352, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §402, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 147, related to free postage and was repealed by act Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 96.

Section 353, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §403, as added Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 103, related to administration of this chapter.

A prior section 353, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §403, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 148, defined terms for purposes of this chapter and was repealed by act Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 96.

Section 354, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §404, as added Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 103, related to separability of provisions.

A prior section 354, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §404, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 148, related to separability of provisions and was repealed by act Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 96.

Section 355, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title IV, §405, as added Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 103, related to construction of this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Additional Repeal

Sections 351 to 355 were also repealed by act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KENYON COVINGTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-1720 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )

Opinion filed July 10, 2015.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Michael E. Raiden, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,
and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Kenyon Covington's convictions and sentences for fle eing or

attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer without violence.

Despite the court granting Coving ton's motion to correct a scri vener's error, Covington's

amended written judgment erroneously reflects that he was convi cted of aggravated

fleeing or eluding. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a corr ected written judgment.- 2 - See Moore v. State, 100 So. 3d 81, 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Covi ngton need not be

present when the correction is made.

Convictions and sentences affirmed; remanded for correction of the

written judgment.

KELLY, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Spruill, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 27, 1977, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a maximum of 15 years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of five years. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### LEVY, Appellant, v. LEVY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Bertha S. Levy against Moses Levy. E. Michling, for appellant. E. W. Fox, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TIMOTHY L. MASSEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:13

- cr - 00224

- MOC

- 1 ; 3:16

- cv 00244

- MOC )

Submitted : December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Timothy L. Massey , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy L. Massey appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and affirm. See United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e need not issue a COA before determining whether the district court erred in dismis sing [a] purported Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisi onal
process. AFFIRMED
# C_2023217EN.01001201.xml

| 20.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

Special report 15/2023:

‘The EU’s industrial policy on batteries — New strategic impetus needed’

(2023/C 217/06)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 15/2023: ‘The EU’s industrial policy on batteries – New strategic impetus needed’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/sr-2023-15

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                             487
<SECURITIES>                                       394
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1686
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (31)
<INVENTORY>                                        463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                            1612
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (842)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                           1420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        244
<COMMON>                                          2133
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1461)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5326
<SALES>                                           5508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5754
<CGS>                                             4827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    21
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    105
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (40)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 65
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        65
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
<FN>
<F1>The company has adopted an unclassified presentation in the Statement of
Financial Condition.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000764579
<NAME> CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,082,003
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      733,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        843,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,733,622
<PP&E>                                             884,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                     705,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,920,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              645,935
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            37,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        300,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (  782,501)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,920,465
<SALES>                                          6,163,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,429,231
<CGS>                                            2,831,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,677,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (13,380)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    933,891
<INCOME-TAX>                                        85,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                848,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       848,891
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .08
        

</TABLE>
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00248- CV He at he rHag e n M c Co nne ll, App e lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctiveService s, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 05-F L-12 4, HO NORAB LE KARIN B ONI CORO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N We will dis miss for want of prosec ution beca use appellant has not filed a brief. The cler k’s re cord w as filed on April 19, 2005. No reporter’ s rec ord has be en filed a nd this Court has been inf ormed by the cour t reporte r that no ar

rang ement has be en made for pa y ment. Appellant’s brief w as due on July

8, 2005. On J uly 19, this Court i nformed a ppellant that her

brief w as over due. Th is C ourt

c a uti on e d a pp e lla nt t hat, u nle ss s he fi le d a

mot ion to e xten d ti me to f

ile he r b ri e f b y

July 29 , th is C ourt

wo uld dis mis s h e r a

pp e a l. Ap pe lla

nt ha s n ot f

ile d a brie f o r a mot ion to e xten d ti me to file a brie f. Ac cording ly , we dismis s t his appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 42.3(b).

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: August 31, 2005