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 - M-Class Mining, LLC              

#   Direction for Review - M-Class Mining, LLC

On February 25, 2019, the Commission granted the peition for discretionary review filed by M-Class Mining for Docket No. LAKE 2018-0188-R.

DFR (M-Class Mining LLC v. Secretary of Labor) LAKE 2018-0188 (2).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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3221 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3221

  To provide for increased flexibility in the extension of the Social 
                       Security program to Guam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2021

 Mr. San Nicolas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for increased flexibility in the extension of the Social 
                       Security program to Guam.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN THE EXTENSION OF THE SOCIAL 
              SECURITY PROGRAM TO GUAM.

    Section 103(v)(1) of the Social Security Amendments of 1960 (Public 
Law 86-778) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The amendments made by subsection (a)'' 
        and inserting ``(A) The amendments made by subsection (a)''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) If the legislation enacted by the Government of Guam 
described in the fifth sentence of subparagraph (A) includes a 
provision expressing the desire of the Government of Guam that the 
insurance system established by title II of the Social Security Act 
would extend only on a prospective basis to such officers and employees 
of such Government and such political subdivisions and 
instrumentalities hired (as determined by the Government of Guam at the 
time of, and included as a provision in, the certification described in 
such sentence) by such Government and such political subdivisions and 
instrumentalities after the calendar quarter in which the Secretary of 
the Treasury receives such certification, the amendments made by 
subsections (c), (n), (q), and (r) shall apply to only such 
individuals.''.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Ethics in Arbitration Materials - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mEijbuDgit\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/ethics-in-arbitration-materials\/\">Ethics in Arbitration Materials<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/ethics-in-arbitration-materials\/embed\/#?secret=mEijbuDgit\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ethics in Arbitration Materials” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"mEijbuDgit\" 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","description":"CPRG Opinion Summaries Code of Professional Responsibility"}
#### WOOD v. McEWEN.

No. 5651.

Opinion Filed November 24, 1914.

(144 Pac. 590.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Time for Appeal — Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error fails to comply with chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1910-11, requiring that proceedings in error shall be commenced in this court within six months after the date of the rendition of the judgment of the trial court, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from Bounty Court, Creek Bounty; Warren E. Brown, Judge.*

Action between Hairy Wood and L. W. McEwen. From the judgment, Wood brings error.

Dismissed.

*O. B. Barry*and *J. B. Whitehead,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. L. Cheatham,*for defendánt in error.

RIDDLE, J.

Judgment denying ipotion to reinstate this cause was rendered in the trial court on March 31, 1914. The proceedings in error were filed in this court on October 4, 1914. Motion to dismiss has been filed, upon the -ground that the pro*12ceedings were not commenced in this court within the time required by chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1910-11, requiring that proceedings in error must be commenced in this court within six months from the date of rendition of the judgment complained of. It appears that more than six months have elapsed since the rendition of the order by the trial court complained of, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case on its merits.

The motion to dismiss is therefore sustained, and the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Repairing Broken Relationships - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OAcw9VVeQJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/building-labor-management-relationships\/repairing-broken-relationships\/\">Repairing Broken Relationships<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/building-labor-management-relationships\/repairing-broken-relationships\/embed\/#?secret=OAcw9VVeQJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Repairing Broken Relationships” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"OAcw9VVeQJ\" 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"}
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. The Doe Run Company              

#   Secretary of Labor v. The Doe Run Company

DoeRun CENT 2015-318-RM Argument Notice 8-15-19.pdf

DoeRun CENT 2015-318-RM Argument Notice 8-15-19.htm

Commission Oral Argument_Secretary of Labor v. The Doe Run Company, Docket No. CENT 2015-318-RM etal_08-15-2019.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
----

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ L. Paul Latham                               |
|--------------------------------------------------|
| L. Paul Latham                                   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer            |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing General Partner of                      |
| Southwest Oil & Gas Income Fund VIII-A, L.P. |
|                                             |
| August 14, 2009                                  |
|                                             |
|                                             |
| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                                 |
| Mel G. Riggs                                     |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of    |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                   |
| Managing General Partner of                      |
| Southwest Oil & Gas Income Fund VIII-A, L.P. |
|                                             |
| August 14, 2009                                  |
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 April 30, 2004 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Date:  June 10, 2004                                 / s /  Dwight Foster
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 DWIGHT FOSTER,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Zvonko BUSIC, Julienne Busic, Petar Matanic, Frank Pesut, Defendants.

No. 76-CR-602.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

March 22, 1977.

David G. Trager, U. S. Atty., Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for United States; Edward R. Korman, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Peter R. Sehlam, Barry E. Schulman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel.

Michael E. Tigar, Washington, D. C., for defendant Zvonko Busic; Martin Ozer, New York City, of counsel.

Michael Ira Asen, New York City, for defendant Julienne Busic.

Martin Elefant, Brooklyn, N. Y., Paul B. Bergman, New York City, for defendant Petar Matanic.

Irwin Rochman, New York City, for defendant Frane Pesut.

*MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER*

BARTELS, District Judge.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury was not properly instructed with respect to the offense of air piracy from the commission of which a death resulted (49 U.S.C. § 1472(i)), and that therefore Count 1 of the indictment should be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the Court examine the Grand Jury minutes at least to ascertain whether the prosecutor’s charge was fair.

The motion is denied on the authority of *United States v. Linetsky,*533 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1976), and *United States v. Slepicoff,*524 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*425 U.S. 998, 96 S.Ct. 2215, 48 L.Ed.2d 824 (1976), two obscenity eases where a claim was made that the Grand Jury had been instructed under the old, invalid standards of *Roth v. United States,*354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), and *Memoirs v. Massachusetts,*383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966), instead of under the newer standard of *Miller v. California,*413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). In *Slepicoff*and *Linetsky*the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the contention that the indictments were invalid because of assertedly improper instructions to the Grand Jury.

The motions with respect to the claim that Count 1 should be dismissed, because the Grand Jury was not properly instructed, are denied on the authority of *Slepicoff*and *Linetsky.*Therefore it is not necessary for the Court to examine the Grand Jury minutes under the circumstances.

SO ORDERED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ADVO INC.'S
FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          13,303
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,226
<INVENTORY>                                      7,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,840
<PP&E>                                         142,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           279
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (85,205)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               986,162
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  761,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,701
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,229
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,307
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (8,199)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3500 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3500

     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the 
resettlement of refugees in a State that objects to such resettlement, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2021

    Mr. Green of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the 
resettlement of refugees in a State that objects to such resettlement, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``States Have A Say Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR RESETTLEMENT OF REFUGEES.

    Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) State Approval.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Director may not resettle a refugee in a State if the Governor of 
that State does not consent to such resettlement.''.
                                 <all>
```