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 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP Docket No. PENN 2008-189.               

#   Secretary of Labor v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP Docket No. PENN 2008-189. 

argument_033111.pdf

argument_033111.mp3

##### 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for PHP Healthcare Corporation and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000803568
<NAME> PHP HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,425
<INVENTORY>                                      1,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,433
<PP&E>                                         107,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,527
<BONDS>                                         66,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           156
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   253,580
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               400,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  394,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,129)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (9,275)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.10)
        

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         110,809                 233,024
<SECURITIES>                                   172,857                 125,180
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,075                 232,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,322                   4,788
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               587,866                 608,573
<PP&E>                                         163,940                 153,335
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,761                  61,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,017,134                 972,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,066                 255,910
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         18                      18
<COMMON>                                            86                      80
<OTHER-SE>                                     377,147                 342,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,017,134                 972,907
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               653,479                 496,182
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  683,611                 586,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,236                   1,154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,482                   6,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,403)                (75,789)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,754                   9,032
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,157)                (84,821)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                 (1,025)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,157)                (85,846)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)                  (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)                  (1.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darlene McGruder POOLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20050

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carmen Roe, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARWOOD, PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Darlene McGruder Poole appeals her January 2010 nine-month sentence, which the district court imposed after she pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. The presentence report (PSR) assigned Poole a single criminal history point pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(c) for her January 4, 2008 sentence to two years of deferred adjudication probation in Texas for theft of $1,500 to $20,000 of property. The PSR added two criminal history points pursuant to § 4Al.l(d) because Poole was on probation for the same theft offense at the time that she committed the instant offense of conspiracy. With a total offense level of nine and a criminal history category of II, her guideline range of imprisonment was six to 12 months. *See*U.S.S.G. Ch.5, Pt.A (sentencing table).

Poole argues that the application of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines in her case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the Guidelines “double counted” her only prior criminal conviction by assessing one criminal history point for the prior offense and two additional points because she committed the instant offense while serving probation for the prior offense.1 Plain error review applies because Poole failed to present her Fifth Amendment argument to the district court. *United States v. Martinez,*496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.2007); *see also Puckett v. United States,*— U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (plain error standard). We have repeatedly held that the advisory guideline system comports with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. *See United States v. Austin,*432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Scroggins,*411 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir.2005). Poole’s only argument on appeal is therefore foreclosed.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.

1

. Had Poole's prior conviction not been "double counted” as she complains of, she contends that her advisory guidelines range would have been four to 10 months, instead of six to 12 months. Thus, her nine month sentence falls within what she contends is the correct advisory guideline range. *See United States v. Jasso,*587 F.3d 706, 713-14 (5th Cir.2009).
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Frank A. Buttacavoli, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Parlux Fragrances, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

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

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

Dated: July 8, 2005                            /s/  Frank A. Buttacavoli
                                               -------------------------
                                               Frank A. Buttacavoli,
                                               Executive Vice President,
                                               Chief Operating Officer
                                               and Chief Financial Officer
#### SCHULTZ *v.*DIEHL.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

No. 166.

Submitted by appellants April 22, 1910.

Decided April 25, 1910.

Under the .act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, the Circuit Court may have jurisdiction of an action brought by a resident of one State against a corporation organized .under the laws of another State and stockholders of that,corporation for the purpose of removing encumbrances from the property of the corporation in the District in which the suit is brought, even if some of the stockholders are not residents of the District in which they are sued. *Jellenik*v. *Huron Copper Mining Co.,*177 U. S. 1. •

The plaintiffs and appellants brought this case as minority stockholders of the Highland Gold Mines Company, a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, against the Highland Gold Mines Company,. said corporation, and its officers •and directors. . ,

It is charged in the bill of complaint that the defendant Crawford, who was the attorney and legal advisor of the company, conspired with defendants Diehl, Grabill and Sorrensen, officers and directors of the company, to fabricate false and fictitious claims against the company on, which judgment was obtained; that the object and purpose of said defendants was to use the judgment as a means of obtaining title in themselves to the company’s property. ’ 1

.Other fraudulent acts were also charged:

Upon the trial defendants Diehl and Grabill moved to dismiss as to them because the court did not have jurisdiction over them for the reason that they had not been sued in the district in which either of them resided or of *595which they were residents or inhabitants, it appearing from the bill that they were citizens of Pennsylvania. The court sustained the motion..

*Mr. Charles W. Fulton*and *Mr. Douglas W. Bailey*for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Decree reversed with costs and cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law. *Jellenik*v. *Huron Copper Mining Company,*177 U. S. 1; 18 Stat. 470, c. 137, § 8; Code of Oregon, §§ 5064, 300, 301.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Mission & Values - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"w6TY79mzml\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/mission-values\/\">Mission & Values<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/mission-values\/embed\/#?secret=w6TY79mzml\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mission & Values” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"w6TY79mzml\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
NUMBER 13-20-00503-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE C & J ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Relator C & J Energy Services, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking 

to compel the trial court to vacate its June 24, 2020 discovery order requiring relator to 

respond to specified requests for production propounded by real parties in interest, Jimmy 

Allen and Dale Allen. Relator has also filed an agreed motion for temporary relief seeking

to stay production under the trial court’s order until ten or twenty1 days after the date of 

this Court’s final disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus.

1 The agreed motion for temporary relief requests that we stay the ordered production of discovery 

for a period of both ten days after disposition and twenty days after disposition. This discrepancy is not 

material to our analysis and ruling herein.
2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the agreed motion for temporary 

relief, is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we GRANT the agreed 

motion or temporary relief and ORDER the date for production under the trial court’s June 

24, 2020 order, and all hearings pertaining to that production, to be STAYED until ten 

days after final disposition in this Court or further ruling of the Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.10.

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Jimmy Allen and Dale Allen, or 

any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, including but not 

limited to Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, Cameron Technologies Inc. and 

Cameron Technologies US, Inc., Ervin Well Site Consultants, LLC, Jaguar Hydrostatic 

Testing, Inc., Key Energy Services, Inc. and Key Energy Services, LLC, Nitro Fluids, LLC, 

and Westbrook Manufacturing Company, file a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See id. R. 

52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

20th day of November, 2020.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50579 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE VICENTE DE LA CERDA-MENCHACA,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-705-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Vicente De La Cerda-Menchaca raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
{"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":"Revocations – May 11, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"62cVCqzgnH\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-may-11-2018\/\">Revocations – May 11, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-may-11-2018\/embed\/#?secret=62cVCqzgnH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations – May 11, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"62cVCqzgnH\" 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"}