alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Office of Assessments

More in This Section		

Close

          -  Office of the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health 
          -  Mine Safety and Health Enforcement 
          -  Program Evaluation and Information Resources 
          -  Administration and Management 
          -  Technical Support 
          -  Educational Policy and Development 
          -  Standards, Regulations, & Variances 
          -  Office of Assessments 

The Office of Assessments assesses and collects civil monetary penalties for violations of the Mine Act and mine safety and health standards.  This mission includes determination of the civil penalty amounts, collection of and accounting for all delinquent penalties, as well as tracking all penalty cases in litigation before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and the Federal courts.

The Office of Assessments is also responsible for MSHA’s Special Investigations Program, which includes the investigations of discrimination complaints filed under Section 105(c) of the Mine Act by miners, representatives of miners, or applicants for employment, as well as investigation of knowing or willful violations under Section 110 of the Mine Act.  The Office also manages MSHA’s Pattern of Violations (POV) Program, which identifies mines exhibiting a potential POV for enhanced enforcement.  

Finally, Assessments administers MSHA’s accountability program, which ensures enforcement policies and procedures are executed properly and efficiently.  During FY 2020, they measured the effectiveness of cross-trained inspectors and provided assistance to the districts in developing corrective action plans as warranted.  The plans identify root causes and corrective actions used to prevent recurrences of specific violations of policy.

The Office of Assessments is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, and has a field office in Wilkes-Barre, PA as well as duty stations located in Madisonville, KY, Pineville, WV, Beckley, WV and Lakewood, CO.
Exhibit 12.2

Certification by the Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Smital Shah, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual
report on Form 20-F of ProQR Therapeutics N.V. (the Company);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys
other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Deliberately omitted]

(c) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 22, 2015



|    |  |                 |  |                                                      
|--- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/ Smital Shah
|    |  | Name:           |  | Smital Shah                                          
|    |  | Title:          |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
584 A.2d 216

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM WELKER.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Dwayne Preston Arndt Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1271 KA 14-01061**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DWAYNE HANDLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DWAYNE HANDLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered April 8, 2014. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]) and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years plus three years of postrelease supervision. We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Although defendant was sentenced to the maximum sentence permitted by law and has a minimal criminal history, he repeatedly fired a gun at another person, and one of the errant bullets went through the window of a nearby home. Moreover, shortly after being placed on probation, defendant essentially ignored all of the terms and conditions of probation and then absconded for the next year and a half. Under the circumstances, we perceive no basis upon which to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; see generally People v Leggett , 101 AD3d 1694, 1695, lv denied 20 NY3d 1101).
Defendant’s contentions in his pro se supplemental brief that his plea was involuntarily entered and that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the time of the plea are not properly before us. The only notice of appeal in the record is from the judgment entered upon sentencing for the violation of probation, and there is**-2- 1271 KA 14-01061** 
no notice of appeal from the underlying judgment of conviction ( see People v Postula , 50 AD3d 1581, 1581, lv denied 10 NY3d 938; People v Parente , 4 AD3d 793, 793-794).

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### CLARA MORGAN SHACKIL v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ET AL. AND LEDERLE LABORATORIES.

December 8, 1987.

Leave to appeal granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MURRAY WHITFIELD.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 409

#### PAUL DI BARTOLOMEO v. PATRICK ARVONIO.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3591

_____________________________ M ICHAEL A. H AYES , Appellant,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. John T. Brown, Judge. May 10, 2019
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . L EWIS , R OWE , and M AKAR , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________ Michael A. Hayes, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,806,904               1,806,904
<SECURITIES>                                 1,646,214               1,646,214
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,172,273               2,172,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                   245,000                 245,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,585,070               6,585,070
<PP&E>                                       2,583,397               2,583,397
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,306,429               1,306,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,329,541              19,329,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,218,730               5,218,730
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    13,596,307              13,596,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   (983,541)               (986,541)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,329,541              19,329,541
<SALES>                                      2,655,003               5,444,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,655,003               5,444,001
<CGS>                                        1,296,311               2,510,347
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,769,819               5,503,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (77,945)               (174,197)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,365                  39,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (66,236)                (75,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0               (175,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (66,236)                 250,349
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (66,236)                 250,349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)                     .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135477 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (56) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly (60) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135477 

 COA: 271808 

Genesee CC: 06-017719-FH 

ODRECUS RYZAN CLEMENTS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions to 

remand are DENIED. 

l0317 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7454

SAMUEL BURT,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WANDA CARTER HALE,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:09-cv-03343-SB)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Burt, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, 

Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Kristy Markay Grafton, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Burt appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burt v. 

Hale, No. 3:09-cv-03343-SB (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

d0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

138769

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138769 COA: 288773 Wayne CC: 07-010669-HF SAMUEL BRIAN POWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

YAKO RESTORATION GROUP CORP.,

(a/a/o Gladys Guillen),

Appellant,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-468

[November 24, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 2017SC9707 

and 2020AP81.

Erik D. Diener of The Diener Firm, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.

Michelle Diverio and Alejandro Sanchez Parraga of Lydecker Diaz, LLC, 

Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25791]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

    Citation of Previous Notice of Agreements Filed: 75 FR 61757, 
October 6, 2010.
    Previous Notice of Agreements: October 1, 2010.
    Correction to the Notice of Agreements Filed: In the October 6, 
2010 Notice announcing the filing of an amendment to Agreement 011611, 
the Amendment was erroneously numbered and described. The correct 
notice should read as follows:
    Agreement No.: 011611-003.
    Title: MOL/APL Slot Transfer Agreement.
    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd.; APL Co. PTE, Ltd.; and 
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Eric C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Goodwin Procter LLP; 901 New 
York Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20001.
    Synopsis: The amendment updates APL's corporate address.
    Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, 
(202) 523-5725.

Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25791 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LARRY BENNETT.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7110

DONALD WELLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MAJOR TOWNSEND; DONALD HICKS, Sergeant; CAPTAIN SMITH; C. D. LARSEN, Warden; J. BERRY,

Sergeant; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-99-42-3)

Submitted: May 23, 2000 Decided: June 7, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wells, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Wells v. Townsend, No. CA-99-42-3 (E.D. Va. July 21,

1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BRUCE SHAW.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 APO Health, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Morton Berger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Safari Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Safari
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


Dated: November 10, 2005
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Name: Morton Berger
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
# Pro Bono Representation of Appellants

Recorded on May 3, 2013

The MSPB neither endorses the services provided by any law firm mentioned in this training, nor warrants that any firm will accept representation in a given case.

 For further information about possible pro bono representation, please contact the appropriate MSPB Regional or Field Office.

Streaming below in .mp4 or OGG format.

Play file in .mpg  format

Play file in .mov  format

**Support Files (pdf format):**

- Transcript
- Pro Bono Training Slides (Boulden)
- Pro Bono Training Slides (Berg)
Exhibit 32.2

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 13th day of July, 2007.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName:

Harley E Barnes IIITitle:

Chief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated December 14, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2101 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-259546) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 14, 2021