alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MSHA Impact Inspection List

(August 2023)

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

District State

Coal/

MNM Mine ID Controller Name Operator Name Mine Name

Citations

Orders

Safeguards (Coal only)

Total

S&S

Non-S&S

Total

S&S

Rate

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

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 M 1500081 Carmeuse Holding SA Yager Materials Corp. Riverside Stone Mine 22 0 0 22 8 14 22 36.36% 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 x x

Beckley WV C 4604236 Sev.en Global Investments a.s. Panther Creek Mining LLC Maple Eagle No. 1 Mine 14 0 0 14 4 10 14 28.57% 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 x x

Birmingham AL C 0101401 Warrior Met Coal Intermediate Holdco LLC Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC No 7 Mine 35 2 0 37 18 19 37 48.65% 34 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 x x x x

Dallas NM M 2900802 Mosaic Company Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc 37 0 0 37 4 33 37 10.81% 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 x

Duluth MI M 2000044 Holcim Ltd Holcim (US) Inc. Holcim- Alpena Plant 10 0 0 10 9 1 10 90.00% 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 x x x x

Lakewood WY C 4800977 Arch Resources Inc Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Black Thunder 6 0 0 6 4 2 6 66.67% 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 x x x

Madisonville KY C 1517216 Alliance Resource Partners LP Warrior Coal LLC Cardinal 8 0 0 8 2 6 8 25.00% 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 x x

Morgantown OH C 3300968 Ricky D Kirk; Jerry Wells Jr Leesville Land LLC Hopedale Mine 7 9 0 16 10 6 16 62.50% 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 x

Mt. Pleasant PA C 3609893 Quintana Capital Group GP Ltd Wilson Creek Energy LLC Acosta Deep Mine 18 0 0 18 2 16 18 11.11% 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 x

Norton KY C 1519838 Alliance Resource Partners LP Excel Mining Excel #5 21 2 0 23 15 8 23 65.22% 21 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 x x x x

Pineville WV C 4606618 Sev.en Global Investments a.s. Rockwell Mining LLC Gateway Eagle Mine 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0.00% 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 x x

Vacaville AK M 5001545 Teck Resources Limited Teck Alaska Inc Red Dog Operations 12 1 0 13 8 5 13 61.54% 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 x x x

Vincennes IN M 1202176 Martin Marietta Materials Inc Martin Marietta Materials Inc Noblesville Stone 8 0 0 8 3 5 8 37.50% 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 x

Warrendale PA M 3609542 Clyde Holding Inc Neiswonger Construction Inc Sewickley Mine 24 0 0 24 7 17 24 29.17% 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 x x x

Total Mines: 14 National Totals 232 14 0 246 94 152 246 38.21% 229 0 3 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 246 3 4 2 3 5 0 12 2 1 1

Last Updated 9/15/2023
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62630-62631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self Employed Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, November 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section

[[Page 62631]]

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Project Committee will be held Thursday, November 18, 2010, at 
9 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. 
Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd 
Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-25474 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

 Comments on Revisions to MSPB Proposed Rules 

Due: July 23, 2012 

Section Comments 

1200.4(b) This section permits the MSPB to make 

decisions on petitions for rule making without 

any public procedures. This appears to be 

contrary to the concept of transparency in 

operations. 

1201.21 Creates multiple additional notice requirements 

for Agencies. Is the MSPB going to provide 

recommended language that will satisfy these 

proposed requirements? 

1201.24 Reduces burden on appellant to produce only 

the Notice of proposed action, the decision, 

and an SF-50, if available. 

The revised language specifically precludes the 

appellant from submitting additional 

information which may be relevant. 

1201.29 Discussion part of notice names this section 

“Dismissal With Prejudice,” however the 

amended regulation section titles it “Dismissal 

Without Prejudice.” 

1201.33 Add restrictions on the costs for depositions 

that can be imposed upon the agency. 

If a judge orders an employee of another 

agency to appear, the witness’ owning agency 

should be responsible for compliance with the 

judge’s order, not the appellant’s agency, 

which may have no authority over employees 

from other federal agencies. 

Questions 

1. How is the responding agency responsible 

for producing witnesses from other 

agencies? 

2. Which Agency bears the financial burden 

of ensuring witnesses from other federal 

agencies appear as ordered? 

1201.51 Based on reasoning given in the discussion 

language, changes to this section seemed to be 

aimed at saving the MSPB travel expenses. A 

reduction in the number of approved hearing 

sites or ability to change approved hearing sites 

without notice and comment can have a 

significantly larger adverse impact on agency 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

 Comments on Revisions to MSPB Proposed Rules 

Due: July 23, 2012 

financial resources. Likely the agency 

representative, a technical representative, and a 

number of witnesses will be travel on behalf of 

the agency, as opposed to the expenses for one 

MSPB representative. Therefore, any savings 

realized by the MSPB will be more than lost by 

the agency. 

1201.53 The revised language permits the MSPB to 

require an Agency to pay for a transcript, 

whether the Agency wishes to obtain one or 

not. This increases the cost of proceedings to 

the Agency. 

1201.113 The new language places no restriction on the 

timeframe for a final decision. 

1201.116 (g) Concerns that the appellant may be granted full 

interim relief although he/she is not the 

prevailing party in the final Board order. 

1201.118 New language allows the Board to reopen a 

case on its own without any time limits for this 

action to occur.
Exhibit 99.1

Trico Marine Services, Inc.

Form 10-Q

Quarterly Report

Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2003

I, Victor M. Perez, Chief Financial Officer of Trico Marine Services, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
1.     	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 for the period covered by such Report.
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.



|                    |     |                                                |  | 
|------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date:  May 15, 2003 | By: | /s/Victor M. Perez                            
|                    |     | Victor M. Perez                               
|                    |     | Vice President and Chief
    Financial Officer
# Hon. Dr. Robert L. Miller

####         Member    

Dr. Robert Miller is a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and assistant director of the Watershed Flood Center at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. In addition to teaching courses in hydraulics, hydrology and numerical modeling, he conducts applied research in water resources engineering and mathematical biology. His research uses math to quantify key variables in water-related challenges such as sea level rise, salt water intrusion and water quality.
          -  

Miller is currently serving as a fellow in the Louisiana Sea Grant Discovery, Integration, and Application (LaDia) Program and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Gulf Research Fellowship Program for environmental stewardship.

Prior to his academic career, Miller worked in private industry on a variety of projects to include: coastal restoration and design, drainage and hydraulic impact studies, FEMA flood zone mapping and modeling, hydraulic design for energy exploration and production and watershed drainage master plans.His long-term goal is to contribute solutions which help and support communities to deal with the challenge of managing complex water ecosystems more effectively and sustainably in the future.Miller earned a bachelor’s degree in 2005 and a Ph.D. in 2015, both from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He is a registered professional engineer in the state of Louisiana. Miller is active in numerous state and local organizations: 
          - Recipient, 2021 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Gulf Research Fellowship Award for Environmental Stewardship.
          - Recipient, 2022 Louisiana Engineering Foundation Faculty Professionalism Award
          - Member, American Society of Civil Engineers, Louisiana Section-Acadiana Branch.

 
          - Member, Environmental and Water Resources Institute

 
          - Member, Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute.

 
          - Member, Association for Computing Machinery.

 
          - Member, Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

 
          - Journal Referee, River Research & Applications Louisiana Technology Council (Louisiana workforce development).

 
          - Journal Referee, Hydrological Processes.
          - Journal Referee, Journal of American Water Resources Association.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GLENN CUNNINGHAM.

October 14, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Robert D. McDermott, Chief Financial
Officer of Main Street Banks, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                              |  | 
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBERT D. MCDERMOTT                     
|                   |  |     |  | Robert D. McDermott, Chief Financial Officer



25
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6735

CARLOS MAURICE FRINK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SUPERINTENDENT WEISNER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:05-hc-00305-BO)

Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Maurice Frink, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Maurice Frink seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and

his motion for reconsideration of that denial filed under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frink has not

made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         958,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,462,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,490,006
<PP&E>                                       5,235,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,990,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,667,378
<BONDS>                                        817,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,235
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,483,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,990,270
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,436,177
<CGS>                                          154,385
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,077,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            118,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.006
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.006
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30, 1997
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,425,525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  738,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    129,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,448,077
<PP&E>                                       1,086,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                 412,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,743,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          686,495
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       208,064
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,743,411
<SALES>                                      1,095,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,095,330
<CGS>                                          187,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,107,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,177,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (20,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,197,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,197,842)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
Or igin al Jurisdiction 

Matters: 

Agen cy Rep r esen t at ive

User Guide

October 13, 2023 

INTRODUCTION

MSPB is providing information for agency representatives who have a need to initiate 

certain original jurisdiction matters in the new e-Appeal, specifically actions brought by

the Special Counsel under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1215, and 1216 and actions taken against

administrative law judges under 5 U.S.C. § 7521. 

This Guide is for agency representatives, only. Individuals requesting an informal 

hearing pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.143(a) (Removal from the Senior Executive Service) 

and administrative law judges alleging a constructive removal pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.142 should use the option in their user role of Appellant to file a “New appeal.”
2

VIEWING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MATTERS

The “MSPB Original Jurisdiction” page displays the agency representative’s docketed 

complaints and any submitted/draft complaints.

An agency representative can view their 

original jurisdiction matters in the new 

e-Appeal by navigating to the 

Dashboard Queues and selecting the 

option for “MSPB Original Jurisdiction.” 
3

FILING AN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION COMPLAINT

1. To file a new original jurisdiction complaint, from the “MSPB Original Jurisdiction”

page, select the option at the top of the page for “New Complaint.”

2. Follow the prompts and provide the requested information to complete and file 

the complaint. After providing the required contact information, you will have 

the option to upload a completed complaint file, if desired. 
4

3. Upon submission, your complaint will be routed automatically to the Office of the 

Clerk of the Board and it will appear on the dashboard in the “My Submitted/Draft 

Complaints” queue with a status of “Pending MSPB Review.” 

4. When the case is docketed by MSPB, it will move from the “My Submitted/Draft 

Complaints” queue and instead appear in the “My Docketed Complaints” queue.

For information regarding filing pleadings in a pending original jurisdiction matter, 

please refer to the General User Guide.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL: FILING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A STAY 

At this time, the new e-Appeal does not yet offer the functionality for the Office of 

Special Counsel to file a request for an extension of an existing stay. MSPB is working to 

expand functionality in the new e-Appeal and hopes to be able to offer this option to 

the Office of Special Counsel in the near future. At this time, as an interim procedure, 

the Office of Special Counsel must file any request for an extension of a stay with the 

Office of the Clerk of the Board by facsimile, mail, commercial delivery or by submitting 

the request for an extension of a stay as a new complaint, as described above, and clearly 

stating in the submission that the request is for an extension of an existing stay.