alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022472EN.01004902.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/49

---

Action brought on 2 November 2022 — United Shipping Group v EUIPO — Baulies Gómez (UNITED WIND LOGISTICS)

(Case T-666/22)

(2022/C 472/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: United Shipping Group GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bornholdt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pablo Baulies Gómez (Rocafort, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UNITED WIND LOGISTICS in the colours blue and black — International registration designating the European Union No 1 531 891

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2022 in Case R 134/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | vary the contested decision to find that the appeal is well-founded, annul decision No B3 131 303 of the Opposition Division of 30 November 2021, and reject the opposition to the designation of the European Union in international registration No 1 531 891; |
| --- | --- |

—

vary the contested decision to find that the appeal is well-founded, annul decision No B3 131 303 of the Opposition Division of 30 November 2021, and reject the opposition to the designation of the European Union in international registration No 1 531 891;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 12-5414.

#### Leon *v.*Securaplane Technologies, Inc., et al.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6761]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-2-24-000]


Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following proposed tariff sheet, with an effective 
date of April 1, 1997:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 6

    Equitrans states that this filing constitutes its second annual 
products extraction rate adjustment filing under Section 32 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff. By this filing, 
Equitrans proposes an adjusted extraction rate of $0.2004/Dth for the 
prospective 12-month period beginning April 1, 1997. Equitrans states 
that this represents a reduction from the $0,2015/Dth rate which was 
approved by the Commission in 1996. In calculating the current rate, 
Equitrans states that it utilizes actual extraction billings and actual 
plant throughout for the 12 months ended December 31, 1996, adjusted 
for anticipated activity during 1997, all as more fully set forth in 
the filing.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest this filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6761 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2022

Table 18.1. Average Number of Employees and Number of Mines by State and Coal Type, 2022

Number of Mines Average Number of Employees

Coal-Producing State1 Metallurgical2 Non-Metallurgical2 Total3 Metallurgical2 Non-Metallurgical2 Total3

Alabama 8 17 22 1,574 424 1,998

Alaska - 1 1 - 99 99

Colorado 1 10 10 41 1,211 1,252

Illinois - 15 15 - 2,018 2,018

Indiana - 14 14 - 2,169 2,169

Kentucky Total 25 101 112 1,088 3,117 4,205

 Kentucky (East) 25 98 109 1,088 1,665 2,753

 Kentucky (West) - 3 3 - 1,452 1,452

Louisiana - 1 1 - 35 35

Maryland 2 13 14 88 145 233

Mississippi - 1 1 - 231 231

Missouri - 1 1 - 7 7

Montana - 5 5 - 944 944

New Mexico - 3 3 - 772 772

North Dakota - 5 5 - 1,186 1,186

Ohio - 10 10 - 386 386

Oklahoma - 1 1 - 1 1

Pennsylvania Total 42 91 112 1,154 2,783 3,937

 Pennsylvania (Anthracite) 5 36 40 58 417 475

 Pennsylvania (Bituminous) 37 55 72 1,096 2,366 3,462

Tennessee - 1 1 - 4 4

Texas - 4 4 - 904 904

Utah - 6 6 - 1,304 1,304

Virginia 22 31 42 1,748 278 2,026

West Virginia Total 92 116 152 6,624 4,959 11,583

 West Virginia (Northern) 6 14 16 1,211 3,030 4,241

 West Virginia (Southern) 86 102 136 5,413 1,929 7,342

Wyoming - 16 16 - 4,794 4,794

Appalachia Total 191 377 462 12,275 10,645 22,920

 Appalachia Central 133 232 288 8,248 3,877 12,125

 Appalachia Northern 50 128 152 2,453 6,344 8,797

 Appalachia Southern 8 17 22 1,574 424 1,998

Interior Region Total - 40 40 - 6,817 6,817

 Illinois Basin - 32 32 - 5,639 5,639

 Other Interior - 8 8 - 1,178 1,178

Western Region Total 1 46 46 41 10,310 10,351

 Powder River Basin - 15 15 - 4,915 4,915

 Uinta Basin - 13 13 - 2,334 2,334

 Other Western 1 18 18 41 3,061 3,102

East of Mississippi River 191 410 495 12,275 16,515 28,790

West of Mississippi River 1 53 53 41 11,257 11,298

U.S. Total 192 463 548 12,316 27,772 40,088

- = No data reported.

1 For a definition of coal producing regions, see the Glossary.

2 Some mines produce both metallurgical and non-metallurgical.

3 Total may not equal the sum, as some mines produced both metallurgical and non-metallurgical.

Note: Excludes mines producing less than 25,000 tons per year, which are not required to provide data.

Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Form 7000-2, 'Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report', U.S. Energy Information Administration Form EIA-7A, 'Annual

Survey of Coal Production and Preparation.'
#### Harold SMITH, Laura Smith, Shanikqua Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross Appellees, S.S. a minor child, by and through Laura Smith, her mother and natural guardian, Plaintiff, v. Alan J. CONFREDA, Individually, Sheriff of Brevard County, Florida, Brian Stoll, individually, Defendants-Appellees, Brian Guilford, individually, Defendant-Appellee Cross Appellant, Six Unknown Members (hereinafter Does No. 1-6) of the Gang and Major Epidemic of Violence Enforcement Response (G.A.M.E.O.V.E.R.) Partnership and/or S.W.A.T. Team members of Wayne Ivey, as Sheriff of Brevard County Florida, et al., Defendants.

No. 16-14957

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 20, 2018)

Hugh L. Koerner, Hugh L. Koerner, PA, Hollywood, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees

Thomas W. Poulton, Jeffrey Kenneth Grant, DeBevoise & Poulton, PA, Winter Park, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Thomas W. Poulton, Jeffrey Kenneth Grant, DeBevoise *&*Poulton, PA, Winter Park, FL, for Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Harold and Laura Smith filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state laws on their own behalf and on behalf of their daughter, Shanikqua Smith, against Sergeant Alan J. Confreda, Agent Brian Guilford, Agent Brian Stoll, and the sheriff of Brevard County. The Smiths claim that the agents violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court found that the agents are entitled to qualified immunity, entered summary judgment in their favor, and dismissed the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

We affirm for the reasons stated in the court’s order, with one exception. The court found that Guilford violated Harold Smith’s constitutional right when he handcuffed and frisked Harold, but it ruled that Guilford was entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.1 The constitutional ruling is not *986necessary to our decision, and we do not imply any position about whether it is correct. See Wate v. Kubler, 839 F.3d 1012, 1018-19 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the court has the discretion to decide whether the right was clearly established before determining whether there was a constitutional violation).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Agent Guilford cross-appeals the court’s constitutional finding. But that cross-appeal is unnecessary. A prevailing, party may, without taking a cross-appeal, defend the district court’s judgment with any argument based on the record, even if that argument involves an attack on the district court’s reasoning. See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ludwig, 426 U.S. 479, 481, 96 S.Ct. 2158, 2159, 48 L.Ed.2d 784 (1976) ("[I]t is ... settled that the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court....”).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Allen WALTER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41594 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 9, 2018

John B. Ross, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Albert Craft, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Allen Walter, Pro Se

Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent John Allen Walter has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Walter has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Walter’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Walter’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motions for leave to withdraw are GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Walter’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4,
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Klamath Fishery Management Council; Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Klamath 
Fishery Management Council, established under the authority of the 
Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 460ss 
et seq.). The Klamath Fishery Management Council makes recommendations 
to agencies that regulate harvest of anadromous fish in the Klamath 
River Basin. The purpose of this meeting will be to develop a range of 
management options for the 1997 fishery season. These options will be 
presented the following week to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 
The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The Klamath Fishery Management Council will meet from 1:00 p.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 6, 1997.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Clarion Hotel, 401 E. Millbrae 
Ave., Millbrae, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ronald A. Iverson, Project Leader, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1006 (1215 South Main), Yreka, 
CA 96097-1006, telephone (916) 842-5763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For background information on the Klamath 
Council, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that 
appeared in the Federal Register on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25639).

    Dated: March 11, 1997.
William F. Shake,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-6886 Filed 3-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Illinois
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-6822 TERRANCE ANDRE SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-88, CA-97-390-2) Submitted: July 21, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Terrance Andre Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction b ecame final on October 14, 1993. On April 16, 1997, Appellant filed a § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year limitation period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Pursuant to our r ecent decision in Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which to file a timely motion. Accordingly, because Appellant filed his § 2255 motion before April 23, 1997, we v acate the district court's order andremand this case for consideration on the merits. We grant a certificate of appealability on this issue but 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Bankshares Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis A. Starliper, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dennis A. StarliperDennis A. Starliper Chief Financial
Officer




November 16, 2005
EXHIBIT 99.2
  MINE
    SAFETY DISCLOSURES
            
    Section 104(a) Citations:  The total
    number of citations received from MSHA under section 104(a)
    of the Mine Act for alleged violations of health or safety
    standards that could significantly and substantially contribute
    to a serious injury if left unabated.
    Section 104(b) Orders:  The total number
    of orders issued by MSHA under section 104(b) of the Mine
    Act, which represents a failure to abate a citation under
    section 104(a) within the period of time prescribed by
    MSHA. This results in an order of immediate withdrawal from the
    area of the mine affected by the condition until MSHA determines
    that the violation has been abated.
    Section 104(d) Citations and Orders:  The
    total number of citations and orders issued by MSHA under
    section 104(d) of the Mine Act for unwarrantable failure to
    comply with mandatory health or safety standards.
    Section 110(b)(2) Violations:  The total
    number of flagrant violations issued by MSHA under
    section 110(b)(2) of the Mine Act.
    Section 107(a) Orders:  The total number
    of orders issued by MSHA under section 107(a) of the Mine
    Act for situations in which MSHA determined an imminent danger
    existed.




---



##### 



Year ended December 31, 2010
  Section





ProposedSection

Section

104(d)

Section

Section

MSHA



Pending104(a)

104(b)

Citations

110(b)(2)

107(a)

Assessments(2)



LegalMine(1)

Citations

Orders

and Orders

Violations

Orders

($ in thousands)

Fatalities

Actions(3)Texas Lime Company


10







7











25.9







6Arkansas Lime CompanyPlant


2



















1.0







Limedale Quarry


7



















8.6







Colorado Lime CompanyMonarch Quarry






























Salida Plant


4



















3.4







Delta Plant






















.1







U.S. Lime Company  St. Clair


9



1



4











250.8



1



15     (1)
    
    The definition of a mine under section 3 of the Mine Act
    includes the mine, as well as other items used in, or to be used
    in, or resulting from, the work of extracting and processing
    limestone, such as roads, land, structures, facilities,
    equipment, machines, tools, kilns, and other property. These
    other items associated with a single mine have been aggregated
    in the totals for that mine.(2)
    
    The proposed MSHA assessments issued during the reporting
    periods do not necessarily relate to the citations or orders
    issued by MSHA during the reporting period or to the pending
    contests reported above.(3)
    
    Includes any pending legal action before the Commission
    involving such mine as of December 31, 2010. All pending
    legal actions were initiated by the Company and may include
    multiple citations or orders. The pending legal actions may
    relate to the citations or orders issued by MSHA during the
    reporting period or to citations or orders issued in prior
    periods.  Pattern or Potential Pattern of
    Violations.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1265 

Expressing support for designation of the week of December 6, 2021, through 

December 12, 2021, as National United States Miners Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2020 

Mr. STAUBER (for himself, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. 

GOSAR, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. STEWART, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. 

MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. FULCHER, Mr. EMMER, 

Ms. CHENEY, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. LAMBORN, and Mr. MCKINLEY) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of the week of December 

6, 2021, through December 12, 2021, as National United 

States Miners Week. 

Whereas December 6 was established by Congress in 2009 to 

honor the hard work and commitment of miners in the 

United States; 

Whereas America’s mining men and women are foundational 

to modern economies and are necessary for a high quality 

of life for all citizens; 

Whereas the critical minerals and other raw materials harvested by American miners out of domestic mines 

produce more than $82 billion in raw materials annually; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1265 IH 

Whereas the critical minerals and other raw materials unearthed by miners are crucial to secure supply chains 

needed for steel, roads, houses, cars, smartphones, ventilators, wind turbines, solar panels, and everything else 

in our world that is not grown; 

Whereas America’s miners mine or support other industries 

in all 50 States; 

Whereas there are more than 500,000 directly employed miners in America, supporting another 1.8 million jobs in 

manufacturing, engineering, and environmental sciences; 

Whereas each miner in America indirectly supports an additional 3 jobs in spinoff industries such as health care, 

hospitality, education, and others, and are located in 

largely rural communities; 

Whereas America’s miners support billions in State and Federal royalty revenues, funding education, child care, and 

diversifying economic development in their communities; 

and 

Whereas America would rely more on countries like Russia, 

China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and others 

who rely on child and slave labor to produce minerals 

needed for modern life if it weren’t for American miners: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the work of America’s mining men 

3 and women; and 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of America’s min5 ers in securing our domestic supply chains. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS