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 
-                   Mill Branch Coal Corp. v. Secretary of Labor              

#   Mill Branch Coal Corp. v. Secretary of Labor

Mill Branch VA 2012-435-R Argument Notice 1-29-15.pdf

Mill Branch VA 2012-435-R Argument Notice 1-29-15.htm

Mill Branch Coal Corp., Docket Nos. WEVA 2012-435-R.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
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66946-66947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31807]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389]


Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2; Notice of Receipt of Application for Renewal of Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16 for an Additional 20-Year 
Period

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the application 
from Florida Power and Light Company, dated November 29, 2001, filed 
pursuant to Section 104b and 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, and 10 CFR part 54 for renewal of Operating License Nos. DPR-
67 and NPF-16, which authorize the applicant to operate St. Lucie 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The St. Lucie nuclear facility is located 
about 7 miles southeast of the city of Fort Pierce, Florida, in St. 
Lucie County. The current operating licenses for St. Lucie Units 1 and 
2, expire on March 1, 2016, and April 6, 2023, respectively. For St. 
Lucie Unit 2, Florida Power and Light requested an exemption to the 
schedular requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) by letter dated October 30, 
2000. By letter dated February 27, 2001, the NRC approved the requested 
schedular exemption. The St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 reactors are 
Combustion Engineering designed pressurized-water reactors. The 
acceptability of the tendered application for docketing and other 
matters, including an opportunity to request a hearing will be the 
subject of a subsequent Federal Register notice.
    A copy of the application is available for public inspection at the

[[Page 66947]]

Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or on the NRC 
Web site from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible 
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If 
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room 
(PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#067662744668746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dfde9ffcde3ffeea3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The staff has verified that a copy of the license renewal 
application for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has been provided to the 
Indian River Community College library.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 19th day of December, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Stephen T. Hoffman,
Acting Chief, License Renewal and Standardization Branch, Division of 
Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-31807 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Joel P. WHITNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WALKER, Chief, California Prison Health Care Services; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-15579.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Joel P. Whitney, San Diego, CA, pro se.

*494Timothy Howard Delgado, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *494*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

California state prisoner Joel P. Whitney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Whitney’s action because Whitney failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. *See Togu-chi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004) (to be deliberately indifferent, treatment must be medically unacceptable under the circumstances and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health); *Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology,*228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000) (in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Whitney’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Theodore WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 05-99009, 07-15536.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 31, 2015.

Gilbert Henry Levy, Law Offices of Gilbert H. Levy, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Laura Chiasson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, AGAZ-Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judges MURGUIA and HURWITZ did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
74 A.3d 119

#### Joan KRAJEWSKI, Respondent v. Fred Paul GUSOFF, John Scanlon, Philly Online LLC, Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, dba Broad Street Community Newspapers, and Broad Street Publishing LLC, Petitioners.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 29, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

> a. May a Philadelphia City Councilwoman recover for defamation based on an editorial, political cartoon, and letter to the editor that criticized her for accepting and keeping a $300,000 “DROP” retirement payment from the City (without actually retiring) at a time when the City was so financially distressed that a treasured library in her district was forced to close?

> b. Does Pennsylvania recognize a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy by an elected official for publications discussing her public, not private, actions?

> *118c. If Pennsylvania recognizes a false light invasion of privacy claim in such circumstances, may the claim proceed where the court has found that the First Amendment bars a defamation action based on the same publications?

Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the consideration of this matter.
Exhibit 23.2

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement of Hudson Holding Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-150432) with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Hudson Holding Corporation as of March 31, 2008 and for the year then ended,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hudson Holding Corporation for the year ended March 31, 2009. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading Experts in such Prospectuses.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Eisner LLP    
|                  
|New York, New York
|June 25, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                        4,863
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                80,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,877
<INVENTORY>                                  94,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            202,507
<PP&E>                                      212,356
<DEPRECIATION>                              112,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              411,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       158,382
<BONDS>                                     251,860
<COMMON>                                     18,797
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (73,681)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                411,614
<SALES>                                     468,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            468,645
<CGS>                                       336,017
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               336,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                330
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           33,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (28,368)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 13,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (41,773)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (8,142)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (8,455)
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (58,370)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (3.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (3.41)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.02

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 Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2003 as submitted for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald J. Domanico, Vice President and Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

| | (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.

|Date: May 14, 2003 |  |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |                                                               
|                   |  |  | /s/ RONALD J. DOMANICO                                        
|                   |  |  |                                                               
|                   |  |  | Ronald J. Domanico, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Caraustar Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Caraustar Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

47
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Troy WARREN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-7169.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 21, 2010.

Troy Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Owen Washington, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Troy Warren seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 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 Warren has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Order filed, March 31, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 21

- 00753

- CV

____________
MONICA NICOLE TOWNSEND , Appellant

V.

SAIRA VASQUEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Fort Bend County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- CCV

- 066520

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 14, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On March 3, 2022, this court granted the court reporters request for

extension of time to file the record until Marc h 28, 2022. To date, the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the time prescribed in the previous request, we issue the following order.
We order Vanessa Owens, the court reporter, to file the recor d in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2018-02-01 08:31:47","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2018"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"7"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":[" "]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":[" "]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2018","quarter":"Q1"}
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 
-                   FOIA LOG FY 2020              

#   FOIA LOG FY 2020

 

 

 

 

 

##### 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