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 
-                   Direction for Review - James C. Scott, employed by Mill Branch Coal Corp.               

#   Direction for Review - James C. Scott, employed by Mill Branch Coal Corp. 

On August 28, 2019, the Commission granted the petition for discretionary review filed by the Secretary of Labor for Docket Nos. VA 2018-0103, VA 2018-0104.  

DFR(Scott  Thomas emp. Mill Branch Corp)VA 2018-0103 0104.pdf

PDR-(James C. Scott & Donnie B. Thomas, employed by Mill Branch Coal Corp.) VA 2018-103 & VA 2018-104.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
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

October 19, 2012

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 8, 2012

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. The American Coal Co., Docket No. LAKE 2010-408-R.

(Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in 

vacating an order issued under section 103(k) of the Mine Act, 30 

U.S.C. § 813(k).)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"2019 - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OqZqgqaBT2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/2019-2\/\">2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/2019-2\/embed\/#?secret=OqZqgqaBT2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2019” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"OqZqgqaBT2\" 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"}
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31888]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Announcement of Import Restraint Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool, 
Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and 
Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Hong Kong; Correction

December 20, 2001
    In the letter to the Commissioner of Customs published in the 
Federal Register on December 5, 2001 (66 FR 63219), on page 63220, 2nd 
column, in the table listing import restraint limits, categories 331pt. 
and 631pt. were inadvertently omitted from the list of categories 
covered under Group II. A letter has been sent to the Commissioner of 
Customs to add these categories to the categories listed under Group 
II.

  
  
D. Michael Hutchinson,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.
[FR Doc. 01-31888 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S
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 Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of Bioaccelerate, Inc. (the
"Company") for the three months ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Linden
Boyne, Secretary and Director 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 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.





                        /s/ Linden Boyne
                        --------------------------
                        Linden Boyne
                        Secretary and Director
                        April 29, 2004
105 A.3d 1098

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ALEEM L. HAMMOND (A/K/A ALLEN JOHNSON), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

January 23, 2015.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied without prejudice to defendant appropriately raising in a petition for post-conviction relief the issue of counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance regarding the consequences of defendant’s plea to some charges in the indictment prior to his trial on the remaining charges.
#### Magdalena KUBICKA; Arkadiusz Gurczak, a/k/a Arkadiusz Girczac, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-1553.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 26, 2016.

Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Laura M.L. Maroldy, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Magdalena Kubicka and Ar-kadiusz Gurczak, both natives and citizens of Poland, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their motion for a continuance or administrative closure. We have reviewed petitioners’ claims and the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion. *See Lendo v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Kubicka*(B.I.A. Apr. 23, 2015). 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lavel PAGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7557.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Michael Lavel Page, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Ivana A. Nizich, Jennifer Regina Sykes, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lavel Page seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). Wfiien 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Page 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.*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

No. PD-0573-12

JOSEPH DELAFUENTE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

WALLER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to 3 days

confinement. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion

to suppress because there was no reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which he was

traveling. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there were no specific, articulable

facts in the record that would support reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. The court of

appeals noted that the existence of reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop is a mixed
2

question of law and fact. The only evidence admitted during the suppression hearing was the

arresting officer’s offense report. Because no witnesses testified, the court of appeals

reviewed de novo the question of whether reasonable suspicion existed. Delafuente v. State,

___ S.W.3d ___, No. 14-11-00500-CR (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.], April 3, 2012). The

th

State Prosecuting Attorney petitioned this Court for discretionary review

When the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case, it did so without the benefit

of this Court’s opinion in State v. Mendoza, ___ S.W.3d ___; No. PD-1000-11 (Tex. Crim.

App. May 9, 2012). Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand

for that court to consider the effect of Mendoza, if any, on its reasoning and analysis in this

case.

En banc

Delivered: June 20, 2012

Publish
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06 - 19 - 00249 - CR DERECK WAYNE FULLER, JR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 32531CR Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION A Hunt County jury convicted Derek Wayne Fuller, Jr., of sexual assault of a child and assesse d a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. In a consoli dated trial, the jury also convicted Fuller of another count of sexual assault of a child in companion case 06 - 19 - 0024 7 - CR and continuous trafficking of persons in companion case 06 - 19 - 0024 8 - CR . The trial court ran Fuller’s sentence in companion case 06 - 1 9 - 00247 - CR consecutively to the sentence in 06 - 19 - 00248 - CR and ran the sentence in this case consecutively to the sentence in 06 - 19 - 00247 - CR . Fuller appeals from all his convictions. Ful ler has filed a single brief raising issues common to all his appea l s. On appeal, Fuller argues (1) that the trial court erred in stacking his sentence in 06 - 19 - 00247 - CR with th e sentence for continuous trafficking of persons in companion case 06 - 19 - 00248 - CR and (2) that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by fa i ling to object to th ose stacked sentence s . W e addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Fuller’ s appeal in cause number 06 - 19 - 00247 - CR . For the reasons s tated therein, we conclude that the trial court was not authorized to stack Fu l ler’s sentence in 06 - 19 - 00247 - CR with h is sentence for continuous trafficking of persons in 06 - 19 - 00248 - CR . As a result, we sustain ed Fuller’s first point of error, which wa s d ispositive. While modification was required in the judgment for 06 - 19 - 00247 - C R to remove the cumulation order, Fuller’s sentence in this case does not reference the improper cumulation order . Instead, it only contains an order , which Fuller concedes is pr oper, that cumulates this3

sentence with the sentence for sexual ass ault of a child in 06 - 19 - 00247 - CR. 1 As a result, there is nothing in this judgment that must be changed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Ralph K. Burgess Justice Date Submitted: August 18, 2020 Date Decided: November 4 , 202 0 Do Not Publis h

1 See Act of May 17, 2013, 83 d Leg., R.S., ch. 228 , § 1, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 967 , 967 , eff. Sept. 1, 2013, amended by Act of May 26, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 413 , § 1.01, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3 , 3 ( eff. Sept. 1, 2019 ) (cur rent version at T EX . P ENAL C ODE § 3.03(b)(2)) (authorizing cum ulations for sentences for sexual assault of a child).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000825517
<NAME> QCS.NET CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      229
<ALLOWANCES>                                        27
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,259
<PP&E>                                             332
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (127)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              984
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,477
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   253
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   567
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (480)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tiron WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7490.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Tirón Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Jacabed Rodriguez Coss, Andrew George Warrnes Norman, Stephen Schenning, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*154PER CURIAM:

Tirón Wheeler appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wheeler’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir.2015); *see also Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-33, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas motion). Wheeler is therefore not required to obtain a certifí-cate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. *See McRae,*793 F.3d at 400. As noted by the district court, in the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, it lacked jurisdiction to hear Wheeler’s successive § 2255 motion. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Additionally, we construe Wheeler’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Wheeler’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*