alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 
-                   Issuances and Filings               

#   Issuances and Filings 

     Until January 3, 2022, most case issuances of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), including inter alia notices, decisions, and orders, will be sent only through electronic mail. Further, FMSHRC will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or facsimile described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(2).  If possible, all filings should be e-filed as described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(1).

##### 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6063
STEVEN LEVON SWINT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-341) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Levon Swint, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Steven L. Swint appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Swint v. Brooks , No. CA-04-341 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11028 Conference Calendar

BILLY JOHN ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CV-1055-D

- - - - - - - - - - Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Billy John Roberson appeals the district court’s remand order pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of an appealable final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Sullivan v. Finkelstein , 496 U.S. 617, 623-31 (1990); Melkonyan v. Sullivan , 501 U.S. 89, 99-102 (1991).
#### Debra MAYES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Renee TIPPENS, Defendant—Appellee, and Graphic Packaging International, Defendant.

No. 10-2254.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 9, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

Debra Mayes, Appellant Pro Se. Mason Gardner Alexander, Jr., Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Debra Mayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration of its order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant Renee Tippens’s motion to dismiss the claims against Tippens. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Mayes seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of CEO  Section 906

AMENDED CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 Amended Annual Report of DEFAULT PROOF CREDIT CARD
SYSTEM, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Vincent  Cuervo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
10th day of May, 2005.

/s/ Vincent  Cuervo
-----------------
Vincent  Cuervo
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FLOWERS
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIXTEEN WEEKS ENDED
APRIL 22, 2000 AND THE FLOWERS INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT
APRIL 22, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-22-2000
<CASH>                                          22,492
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    257,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               655,011
<PP&E>                                       1,750,416
<DEPRECIATION>                                (551,622)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,162,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          637,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,828
<OTHER-SE>                                     481,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,162,296
<SALES>                                      1,317,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,317,413
<CGS>                                          598,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,217,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,757
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,757
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17


</TABLE>
#### Audrey I. CUTTING v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5555.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 9, 1957.

Audrey I. Cutting appearing pro se.

Donald E. Kelley, U. S. Atty., and John S. Pfeiffer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of ap-pellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                  AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                                          1,782,600
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   8,441,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               18,117,600
<PP&E>                                                         16,782,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 15,001,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 23,474,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           8,185,700
<BONDS>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                           62,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     13,946,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   23,474,900
<SALES>                                                        41,696,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               59,987,200
<CGS>                                                          40,587,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  18,290,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                145,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   964,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      359,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               604,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      604,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0.10
        

</TABLE>
Opinion issued March 8, 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 2
- 0 0 0 8 8
- CV

——————————— IN RE EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation , ha s filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus a ssert ing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its request for entry of a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending a hearing on its request for a temporary injunction

. 1

1 The underlying case is ExxonMobil Oil Corporation v. Landmark Industries, LLC, Landmark Industries Energy, LLC, Landmark Petroleum, LLC, Landmark Industries Holdings, Ltd., and Shell Retail and Convenience Operations LLC , Cause2

In connection with its mandamus petition, relator also filed a “Verified Motion for Emergency Relief,” requesting that , pending consideration of the mandamus petition, the Court stay the closing of a transaction for the purchase of several properties between real parties in interest , Landmark Industries , LLC , Landmark Industries Energy, LLC, Landmark Petroleum, LLC, and Landmark Industries Holdings, Ltd., and real party in interest, Shell Retail and Convenience Operat ions LLC . On February 9, 2022, the Court granted relator’s emergency motion staying the closing of the transaction. We deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay imposed by our February 9, 2022 order . Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Countiss and Farris.

No. 20 21

- 83044 , in the 1 13 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Rabeea Sultan Collier pr esiding.
**Exhibit10.27**

**FirstAmendment to Employment Agreement**

This FIRST AMENDMENT TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”), dated March 31, 2005, amends theoriginal Employment Agreement entered into by and between HemaCare Corporation(the “Company”) and Joshua Levy, M.D. (the “Employee”) on March 31, 2000.

Agreement

All terms and conditionsof the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged except as follows:

1.                                       Compensation

Paragraph 3.1 shallremain the same except base salary shall be $225,000 per annum.

2.                                       IncentiveCompensation

Paragraph 3.2 shall bedeleted in its entirety and replaced with:

Employeeshall participate in a bonus program up to 30% of base salary for achievingspecific goals, determined by the Chief Executive Officer. The bonus structurewill put 100% of Employee bonus at risk. Bonuses will be paid annually inMarch. Upon execution of this First Amendment, Employee shall receive aone-time $20,000 bonus payment separate from the bonus previously described.

3.                                       FringeBenefits

(a)   Paragraph 3.3 shall be deleted in itsentirety and replaced with:

Employeeshall be eligible for all fringe benefits as stated in the HemaCare CorporationPersonnel Manual, as modified from time to time, except for items specificallyidentified below, and those which are from time to time provided to otheremployees of the Company holding senior executive positions.

(b)   Paragraph 3.3.1 shall be deleted in itsentirety and replaced with:

1.               PaidTime Off (“PTO”): 24 days plus accrued PTO as of March 31, 2005. Vacation andsick days are no longer provided by the Company. Frozen sick balance, availablefor absences due to illness, shall also roll forward.

1

----

2.               Health/Dentalinsurance as available to all HemaCare staff in California.

3.               Long-termdisability insurance equal to two-thirds of an annual amount of $200,000,pursuant to the terms of such insurance policy, provided that such insurance iscommercially available at reasonable terms.

4.               Termlife insurance in the amount of $1,000,000, provided that such insurance isavailable on commercially reasonable terms.

5.               Participationin the Company’s 401(k) Plan.

6.               Carallowance at $1,000 per month.

**In Witness Whereof**,the parties intending to be legally bound, have executed this First Amendmentto Employment Agreement.
| HemaCare Corporation      | Employee:          |
|---------------------------|--------------------|
|                      |               |
|                      |               |
| By:                       | /s/ Judi Irving    |   | /s/ Joshua Levy  4/13/05 |   |
| Name: Judi  Irving        | Joshua Levy,  M.D. |
| Title: President  and CEO |               |
|                           |                    |  |  |  |

 

2

----
#### WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mary Ruth SPARKS, Appellee.

No. 13019.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 23, 1957.

Wm. Marshall Bullitt, R. Lee Blackwell, Louisville, Ky., for appellant.

S. J. Stallings, Robert P. Hobson, Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, Ky., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel in open court; and it appearing that the jury’s award of damages was not excessive; that the instructions given by the district court to the jury properly placed before it the issues in the case, when considered as a whole; and the court being duly advised,

*957Now therefore, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, on the opinion of Judge Brooks overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and to enter judgment in accordance with appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, as reported in D.C., 141 F.Supp. 328, which is hereby adopted as the opinion of this court.
EXHIBIT 32(A)

                            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 Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31 , 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dwight Foster, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report 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.


Date:  March 13, 2005                             / s /  Dwight Foster
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  DWIGHT FOSTER,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         183,758
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  58,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,430
<PP&E>                                         16,450,046
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,193,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,257,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          380,120
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,257,262
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               772,080
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  997,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,831)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             148,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (222,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (222,193)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
# February 2024 F7 Notices
#### Lamar JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keith DAVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7238.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 18, 2015.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, Sheldon, Flood & Haywood, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamar Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able,unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When 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 *133right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jordan 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*