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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          32,811
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    148,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,607
<PP&E>                                          26,228
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,906
<BONDS>                                         38,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,474
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,547
<SALES>                                        541,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               541,885
<CGS>                                          307,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  307,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,430
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12,773)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,773)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### SCHOOL DIST. NO. 27, CRAIG COUNTY v. GRAHAM.

No. 3998.

Opinion Filed February 2, 1915

(146 Pac. 213.)

MECHA Nil CS’ LliENS — Property Subject — Public Buildings. A mechanics’ lien will not attach to public buildings of this state or any subdivision thereof in the absence of a statute authorizing the same.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*532*Error from DistHct 'Court, Craig County; Preston S. Davis, Judge.*

Action by J. H. Graham against School District No. 27, Craig County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Reversed, with directions to enter judgment for defendant.

*Biddle <& Bennett,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. U. Kornegay,*for defendant in error.

HARDY, J.

Judgment was rendered in this case against plaintiff in error in favor of defendant in error, decreeing a mechanic’s lien upon the schoolhouse of plaintiff in error in Craig •county, Olda., in the sum of $262.90, and ordering said property appraised and sold for the satisfaction of said judgment.

The sole question presented by this appeal is the right of defendant in error to have a judgment decreeing a lien upon the schoolhouse for the amount of his debt. This contention has been settled adversely to defendant in error by several former decisions of this court. *Hutchinson v. Krueger et al.,*34 Okla. 23, 124 Pac. 591, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 98; *Western Terra Cotta Co. et al. v. Board of Education of Shawnee et al.,*39 Okla. 716, 136 Pac. 595; *Minnetonka Lumber Co. v. Board of Education of City of Sapulpa,*41 Okla. 541, 139 Pac. 284.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, with directions to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in error.

All the Justices concur.
#### Sergiy RAYSKYY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73868.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Elena E. Tsiprin, Law Offices of Elena E. Tsiprin, Bellevue, WA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Arthur Leonid Rabin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sergiy Rayskyy, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board *173of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We reject Rayskyy’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to address his argument of worsening country conditions in Ukraine because Rayskyy’s motion was not supported by an affidavit or other relevant evidentiary material. *See Patel v. INS,*741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.1984) (“[I]n the context of a motion to reopen, the BIA is not required to consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”); *see also Doherty,*502 U.S at 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719 (the moving party must show evidence could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing). Moreover, to the extent Rayskyy contends the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in denying Rayskyy’s motion to reopen. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

Rayskyy’s contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance of his asylum claim violated due process was not raised before the BIA, *see Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004), in any event is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir.2003) (BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not violate due process), and is dismissed.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Filing a Shipping Complaint","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"B7U9KxiRxN\"><a href=\"\/resources-services\/filing-a-shipping-act-complaint\/\">Filing a Shipping Complaint<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/resources-services\/filing-a-shipping-act-complaint\/embed\/#?secret=B7U9KxiRxN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Filing a Shipping Complaint” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"B7U9KxiRxN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10393

c/w No. 18-10394

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD RAY CROSBY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-338-1

USDC No. 3:16-CR-405-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Ray Crosby pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Based 

on these new law violations and others, the district court revoked Crosby’s 

supervised release. The court sentenced Crosby to 120 months on the firearms 

count and 168 months on the drug count, to run concurrently, and to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10393 Document: 00514835624 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2019
No. 18-10393

c/w No. 18-10394

2

concurrent three-year terms of supervised release. Regarding the revocation, 

the court sentenced Crosby to 24 months in prison, with 12 months to run 

concurrently with the sentence on the new law counts and 12 months to run 

consecutively; the court did not impose an additional term of supervision. 

Crosby argues that the district court plainly erred in determining that 

his Texas aggravated robbery convictions are crimes of violence as defined in 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 for purposes of determining his base offense level under 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). He asserts that the offense of Texas robbery is broader 

than the generic definition of robbery and does not have the use of force as an 

element of the offense.1

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, asserting that the argument is foreclosed. Crosby correctly 

concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. SantiestebanHernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds 

by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc).

He raises the issue only to preserve it for further review; thus, summary 

affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 

1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

1Crosby does not raise any challenge to the revocation of his supervised release or the 

sentence imposed. 

 Case: 18-10393 Document: 00514835624 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2019
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                 REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
PLATINUM technology, inc.:

With respect to the registration statements on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of PLATINUM
technology, inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our reports
dated July 14, 1998 and November 12, 1998 related to our reviews of interim
financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such reports are not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Merwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 12, 1998
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Updated Administrative Law Judges Hearing Order              

#   Updated Administrative Law Judges Hearing Order

Chief Judge Voisin has revised his order regarding in-person and remote hearings, incorporating updated guidance from the CDC and Safer Workforce Taskforce.

Order- Administrative Law Judge Hearings 6-16-23.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
### 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 December 9, 2009

p1202 

# Order

December 9, 2009

138822

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138822 COA: 289217 Wayne CC: 07-011987 QUINCY PENN HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED as moot, because the defendant has completed his sentence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         156,217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  268,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               425,117
<PP&E>                                       4,549,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                (61,563)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,913,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,613
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,913,082
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,013,335
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,516,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,496,916
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
77 A.3d 1256

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Raymond H. DICKERSON, III, Petitioner.

No. 87 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 29, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2013, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                               237,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5,066,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         253,500
<INVENTORY>                                          11,838,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     17,136,300
<PP&E>                                               11,131,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7,429,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       21,340,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                5,065,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             18,133,400
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         21,340,700
<SALES>                                              12,921,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     12,921,600
<CGS>                                                6,533,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,799,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,437,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   571,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      620,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         20,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  600,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         600,600
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.09


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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> ART. 5 FDS FOR 1ST QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000825410
<NAME> LANDAUER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   3,292
<SECURITIES>                                             2,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                           10,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                               165
<INVENTORY>                                              1,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        18,598
<PP&E>                                                  24,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                          10,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          47,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   19,402
<BONDS>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                   865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                              27,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            47,720
<SALES>                                                 10,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        10,906
<CGS>                                                    3,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            3,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          5,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                             1,923
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      3,183
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             3,183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .36
        


</TABLE>