alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,849,401
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         126,110
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,097,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,919,195
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,248,620
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,232,672
<LOANS>                                    101,617,555
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,165,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             154,574,281
<DEPOSITS>                                 137,876,070
<SHORT-TERM>                                   369,128
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            818,934
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,356,904
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,113,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             154,574,281
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,204,891
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,073,061
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               504,430
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,782,382
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,708,761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,722,191
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,060,191
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  212,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (600)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,448,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,208,788
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,208,788
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,468,129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7690

ANTOINE MARTWAIN HILL

- EL, a/k/a Antoine Martwain Hill, a/k/a Antoine M. Hill , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CALVIN JOHNSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. ( 8:18

- cv - 01654

- TDC )

Submitted : March 23, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Antoine Martwain Hill

- El , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antoine Martwain Hill

- El seeks to appeal the district court’s or der dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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)

. When , as here, 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. Gonzalez , 565
U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hill

- El’s informal brief does not challenge the dispositive timeliness determination by the district court, he has forfeited appellate review. Se e Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY v. ACMAT CORPORATION.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 253

#### CONSTANCE HOLLOWAY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MUSKIN CORPORATION, ET AL. AND PELICAN SWIM AND SKI CENTER, INC.

June 11, 1990.

Leave to appeal granted. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*554, 571 A.2d 1324)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40527

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:10-CR-1334-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raul Araguz-Ramirez

(Araguz) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Araguz has not filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue

for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 19, 2011

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: 11-40527 Document: 00511699206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2011
No. 11-40527

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-40527 Document: 00511699206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2011
3

2

MSHA Impact Inspection List 

(January 2024) 

Mine Information Type of Issuance S&S Information Issuances - Type of Action Justifications 

District State 

Coal/ 

MNM Mine ID Controller Name Operator Name Mine Name Colu 

Citations

Orders

Safeguards (Coal only)

Total 

Col 

S&S

Non-S&S

Total

S&S 

Rate 

Col 

104(a) Citation

104(b) Order

104(d)(1) Citation

104(d)(1) Order104(d)(2) Order

104(e)(2) Order

314(b) Safeguard

103(k) Order

104(g)(1) Order

103(j) Order

107(a) Order Total 

Col 

1. Operator Tactics 

2. Hazard Complaints /Hotline Calls

3. Plan Compliance Issues

4. Inadequate Exams

5. Accidents, Injuries, Illnesses

6. Fatal Accidents 

7. Enforcement History

8. Adverse Conditions

9. Respirable Dust Issues

10. Operational Changes 

Barbourville KY C 1518198 Javelin Global Commodities (UK) Ltd Bluegrass Natural Resources, LLC Panther Mine 18 0 0 18 3 15 18 16.67% 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 x 

Beckley WV C 4608560 John M Potter Screaming Eagle Coal LLC Little Eagle Mine No 1 7 1 0 8 1 7 8 12.50% 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 x 

Birmingham SC M 3800014 Holcim Ltd Holcim (US) Inc. Holcim (US) Inc. Holly Hill Facility 7 0 0 7 3 4 7 42.86% 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 x x x 

Dallas OK M 3401289 Buzzi Unicem S P A Buzzi Unicem USA LONE STAR PRYOR PLT MILL & QY 17 0 0 17 3 14 17 17.65% 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 x 

Denver AZ M 0202961 Brian Thomas; Cristy Thomas Christensen Ready Mix South Town 10 0 0 10 5 5 10 50.00% 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 x x 

Duluth IL M 1101013 USS Holdings Inc U. S. Silica Company Ottawa Plant 11 0 0 11 3 8 11 27.27% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 x x x 

Lakewood WY C 4800977 Arch Resources Inc Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Black Thunder 9 0 0 9 4 5 9 44.44% 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 x x x 

Madisonville MO M 2300134 Buzzi Unicem S P A Buzzi Unicem USA Lone Star Quarry & Mill 24 0 0 24 13 11 24 54.17% 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 x x x x x x 

Morgantown WV C 4601437 ACNR Holdings, Inc Marshall County Coal Resources, Inc. Marshall County Mine 16 0 0 16 6 10 16 37.50% 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 x x 

Mt. Pleasant PA C 3607416 CONSOL Energy Inc Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC Enlow Fork Mine 11 0 0 11 4 7 11 36.36% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 x 

Norton VA C 4407369 Ramaco Resources Inc Ramaco Resources Land Holdings, LLC Mine No. 1 17 0 0 17 4 13 17 23.53% 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 x x x 

Pineville WV C 4609522 Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc Spartan Mining Company, LLC Road Fork #52 Mine 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 100.00% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 x 

Vacaville CA M 0400157 Mitsubishi Corp Mitsubishi Cement Corp Cushenbury Plant 4 1 0 5 4 1 5 80.00% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 x x x 

Vincennes IL C 1103147 CBR Investments, LLC; CBR Investments II, LLC Knight Hawk Coal, LLC Prairie Eagle-Underground 18 0 0 18 5 13 18 27.78% 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 x 

Warrendale PA M 3600006 Buzzi Unicem S P A Buzzi Unicem USA Hercules Cement LP 15 0 0 15 3 12 15 20.00% 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 x x 

Total Mines: 15 National Totals 186 2 0 188 63 125 188 33.51% 186 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 188 1 4 1 4 5 2 11 3 2 0 

Last Updated 2/9/2024
#### Newton *v.*Newton.

[No. 19,706.

Filed December 5, 1963.]

*White, Raymond, Pierce & Beasley,*of Muncie, *Philip S. Cooper*and *Busby, Davisson, Cooper & Farr,*of Anderson, for appellant.

*Billie W. C. Schuyler, Richard E. Kreegar*and *Beckman, Rotruck & Schuyler,*of counsel, of Anderson, for appellee,

Ryan, J.

— The appellee filed his complaint for divorce against the appellant, alleging cruel and inhuman treat*452ment. The appellant filed her answer under Rule 1-3 and also a cross-petition, which was dismissed before the trial. Trial was had by the court and judgment was rendered granting a divorce to the appellee. Appellant filed her motion for a new trial which was overruled, and which appellant now assigns as error. Appellant now argues that the judgment was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

There is no dispute that the evidence adduced at the trial is in conflict. This being the case, this court is not at liberty to weigh the evidence or to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

No good purpose would be served by reciting here the evidence which was presented to the trial court. However, after carefully examining the record we are of the opinion that there was evidence to support the judgment. There being no manifest error the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Carson, C. J., and Clements and Cooper, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 194 N. E. 2d 415.
#### Venita De FOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT/UNITED MIDWEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES COMPANY, doing business as Sprint Long Distance, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-3191.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2001.

Before BRISCOE, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff seeks review of an order of the district court dismissing her employment discrimination action based on alleged sex*838ual harassment by her supervisor. The court dismissed the action with prejudice because of plaintiffs repeated and wilful disobedience of the court’s orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Although plaintiffs appellate arguments are far from clearly stated, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and are persuaded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs many motions for default judgment, which were based on her claim that the defendants named in the original complaint had not timely answered the complaint. *See Dennis Garberg &*Assocs., *Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int’l Corp.,*115 F.3d 767, 771 (10th Cir.1997) (district court’s decision to enter default judgment is committed to sound discretion of district court). The district court adequately explained its denial of plaintiffs requests for default judgment.

Nor did the court abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs action. *See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,*965 F.2d 916, 918 (10th Cir.1992) (district court has discretion to dismiss action upon consideration of all relevant factors if dismissal alone would satisfy interests of justice). The court alerted plaintiff to her need to comply with its orders and the federal procedural rules. *See M.M. v. Zavaras,*139 F.3d 798, 804 (10th Cir.1998) (“The record in this case establishes that plaintiff was given several opportunities to comply with the federal rules of procedure governing the case and the orders of the court, and that she was warned in the event of a failure to do so her case would be dismissed”). We therefore affirm the district court for substantially the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order filed June 15, 2000. *See DeFoe v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.,*196 F.R.D. 392 (D.Kan.2000).

In view of our disposition of this appeal, plaintiffs motion on “Incorrect Filing on Defendant’s Name,” and defendant’s motion to strike certain exhibits attached to plaintiffs reply brief are denied as moot. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
#### STATE ex rel. Ira Joe MIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2497.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Mims, Ira Joe; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. No. 129,511B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. KH 09-44967.

Denied. Untimely, non-eognizable, and repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

VICTORY, J., recused.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6028

LEROY SHAW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT WARD, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution; WILLIAMGUNN, Director of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-249-20-BD) Submitted: January 20, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Shaw appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a certificate of probable cause so that he may appeal the district court's dismissal of his request for habeas corpus relief. Shaw's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that Shaw's habeas petition be dismissed based on his failure to exhaust state remedies, and advised Shaw that his failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Shaw failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation, which the district court adopted.The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Shaw waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. In viewof this waiver, we find the propriety of the district court's decision to deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal to be moot. Even if we were to find that Shaw made the requisite showing for issuance of a certificate of probable cause, he would not receive appellate review in light of his waiver. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, see Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 20683 (1997), and dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 (unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1997 (unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          20,146
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,760
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,874
<PP&E>                                       1,325,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,291,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,369
<BONDS>                                        616,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                     559,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,291,712
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,482
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,549
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10224

Summary Calendar

 

FLORA ADAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-2714-T

- - - - - - - - - -

November 30, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDLE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Flora Adams appeals the district court’s decision affirming

the determination by the Commissioner of Social Security that

Adams is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security

Act. Adams argues that the determination of the administrative

law judge (ALJ) that her depression was not severe is not

supported by substantial evidence because he failed to consider

the opinions of the treating physicians and the state medical

consultant. She also argues that the ALJ’s determination that

she has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range 
No. 99-10224

-2-

of sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence in

view of her bilateral manipulative limitations. We have reviewed

the record and Adams’ brief and AFFIRM the district court’s

decision for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district

court. Adams v. Apfel, No. 3:97-CV-2714-T (N.D. Tex. December

16, 1998).

Adams also argues for the first time on appeal that the ALJ

erred in finding that her depression was not severe and that the

ALJ’s determination that she can perform a full range of

sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence in view

of her inability to tolerate environmental pollutants such as

dust, fumes, and smoke. Because Adams did not raise these issues

in the district court, we will not consider them for the first

time on appeal. See Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th

Cir. 1987); James v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 702, 704 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.