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 on behalf of Lawrence L. Pendley v. Highland Mining Company, LLC, Docket Nos. KENT 2007-383-D and KENT 2007-506-D.              

#   Secretary of Labor on behalf of Lawrence L. Pendley v. Highland Mining Company, LLC, Docket Nos. KENT 2007-383-D and KENT 2007-506-D.

argument_112008.pdf

argument_112008.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
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. WILSHIRE HOLDING CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 14100.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1956.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1957.

Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

*905Murray M. Chotiner, Albert Jack Chot-iner and Russell E. Parson, Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondent.

Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and LING, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

A motion has been filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the above entitled cause, that the decision of the Tax Court therein be summarily reversed.

The above entitled case was consolidated in the Tax Court with the case of Oesterreich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 13,924, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 798. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties proceedings on appeal in the above entitled case No. 14,100 have been held in abeyance pending the decision of the court in the Oesterreich case No.13,924. The Wilshire Holding Company had its day in court since it was permitted to file a brief amicus curiae in the Oesterreich case and was permitted to use the full time assigned to the respondent for oral argument in the latter case.

This court in the Oesterreich case upon full consideration filed an opinion the effect of which was to determine the cause in favor of Walburga Oesterreich in No. 13,924 and against Wilshire Holding Company in the above entitled cause which was inseparably connected therewith.

Thereafter, this court denied a petition of Wilshire Holding Company for leave to file a petition for rehearing in the Oesterreich case.

The Clerk of this Court has received a representation (which is in the official records here and which this court elects to treat as a motion) by counsel for Wal-burga Oesterreich suggesting that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue among other things refuses to process the tax for years subsequent to 1946 and therefore requests the court to entertain a petition requiring the Commissioner to show cause why he should not proceed with such processing.

The court finding no reason why determination should now be delayed summarily reverses the determination in the above entitled cause No. 14,100 based upon the previous determination and opinion in the companion case of Oesterreich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 13,924, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 798.

Order

Now on this day this cause coming on to be heard on the motion of the petitioner by his attorney that the decision of the Tax Court in the above entitled case be summarily reversed on the basis of this Court’s opinion of October 29, 1955 in the companion case of Walburga Oesterreich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 13,924, 226 F.2d 798 and the Court having given full consideration to said consolidated cases and being now fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

Ordered and adjudged that the decision of the Tax Court in the above entitled cause be and the same is hereby reversed.
#### Hana HILSENRATH and Oliver Hilsenrath, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Nana Hilsenrath; et al., Plaintiffs, v. The SWISS CONFEDERATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-17127.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Hana Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Oliver Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Stephan E. Becker, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, Sharon L. O’Grady, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing their action against the Swiss Confederation and Swiss government officials alleging violation of their rights under the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd.,*475 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The Hilsenraths alleged that the Swiss Confederation, the Federal Attorney Gen*315eral of Switzerland and an employee of the Swiss Attorney General violated the Hilsenraths’ constitutional rights when they froze the Hilsenraths’ Swiss bank assets during the course of a criminal investigation into allegedly illicit financial dealings. The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Swiss government and its employees are immune from this action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq. (“FSIA”) and the Hilsenraths did not establish the applicability of any of the FSIA’s exceptions to sovereign immunity. *See Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Derderian, 872*F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir.1989) (if the “claim does not fall within one of the exceptions, the court cannot entertain the action” and it must dismiss the action against the foreign state).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"id":260,"date":"2018-04-24T16:22:04","date_gmt":"2018-04-24T20:22:04","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=260"},"modified":"2019-05-07T13:51:25","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T17:51:25","slug":"acting-chairman-michael-a-khouri-testifies-to-congress-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/acting-chairman-michael-a-khouri-testifies-to-congress-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Acting Chairman Michael A. Khouri Testifies to Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/042018SenateWrittenTestimony.pdf\">Statement of<br \/>\nMichael A. Khouri<br \/>\nActing Chairman<br \/>\nFederal Maritime Commission<br \/>\nBefore the<br \/>\nUnited States Senate<br \/>\nCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation<br \/>\nSubcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Statement of Michael A. Khouri Acting Chairman Federal Maritime Commission Before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[8,4,6],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3930,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260\/revisions\/3930"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Nicholas DUGGINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7643.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Corey Nicholas Duggins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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:

Corey Nicholas Duggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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). 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 Duggins 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3582 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3582

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily increase the 
      work opportunity tax credit as applied to certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2021

    Mr. Fallon (for himself, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Veasey, and Mr. Vela) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily increase the 
      work opportunity tax credit as applied to certain veterans.

    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 ``Veteran Employment Recovery Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT AMOUNTS FOR 
              CERTAIN VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 51(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Special rule for taxable year 2021.--In the case of a 
        taxable year beginning in 2021, paragraph 3 shall be applied 
        with respect to an unemployed veteran by substituting `$12,000' 
        for `$6,000' and by substituting `$28,000' for `14,000'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            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 October 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Anthony Campo, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial and Accounting 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:  December 13, 2003          / s /  Anthony Campo
                                  ----------------------

                                  ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                  Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and
                                  Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                                        EXHIBIT 32.1


             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 Technology Funding Venture Partners IV, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of
Technology Funding Limited, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partnership as of
and for the period covered by the Report.


Date:  August 15, 2005    By:     /s/   Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Limited

Technology Funding Partners IV, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
#### Robert DIXON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORWOOD, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-55055.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Robert Dixon, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

Jill Feeney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee Norwood, Warden.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Robert Dixon appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Dixon contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction of up to one year for his successful completion of a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (“RDAP”). Dixon’s contention fails because the crime for which he was convicted was not a “nonviolent offense,” and therefore he is ineligible for the sentence reduction. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B); *United States v. Wright,*215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, the record reflects that Dixon failed to successfully complete the RDAP, such that he would be ineligible for the sentence reduction regardless of his commitment offense. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B); *Murphy v. Hood,*276 F.3d 475, 476-78 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 16 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES T. DEPINEDA, named as

petitioner on behalf of Manuel Sesario

Depineda,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RANDY HENDERSON, C.M.C.;

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF COLORADO; SUSAN

JONES, Assistant Superintendent; and

FRANK MILLER, Assistant

Superintendent,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 97-1335

(D.C. No. 97-D-1310)

(District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

Andres T. Depineda filed a pro se action in the district court seeking a writ of

habeas corpus on behalf of his brother Manuel Sesario Depineda. Manuel is an abusive

filer already sanctioned by this court for his persistent frivolous litigation in an order
- 2 -

enjoining him from litigating unless represented by a licensed attorney. Depineda v.

Hemphill, 34 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 1994). This proceeding is a clumsy and thinly

disguised attempt to evade our injunction and avoid the consequences. The district court

properly held Andres Depineda lacked standing to bring this wholly frivolous action, and

we AFFIRM that holding. Andres and Manuel Depineda are further put on NOTICE

that any attempt by either or both of them to evade the injunction ordered restricting pro

se litigation by Manuel Depineda may result in further sanctions by this court. The

application to proceed without payment of fees is DENIED and the”Motion to Dismiss

Sua Sponte” is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
Presidential Documents

66267

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 246

Friday, December 21, 2001

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 13244 of December 18, 2001

Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of

the Interior

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, including Subchapter III of Chapter

33 of title 5 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered that:

Section 1. Subject to the provisions of section 3 of this Executive Order,

the officers named in section 2, in the order listed, shall act as and perform

the functions and duties of the office of Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)

during any period when both the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of

the Interior (Deputy Secretary) have died, resigned, or are otherwise unable

to perform the functions and duties of the office of Secretary.

Sec. 2. Order of Succession.

(a) Solicitor of the Department of the Interior;

(b) Assistant Secretary of the Interior in charge of Policy, Management

and Budget;

(c) Assistant Secretary of the Interior in charge of Land and Minerals

Management;

(d) Assistant Secretary of the Interior in charge of Water and Science;

(e) Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks;

and

(f) Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs.

Sec. 3. Exceptions.

(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)–

(f) in an acting capacity shall act as Secretary pursuant to this Executive

Order.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Executive Order, the President

retains discretion, to the extent permitted by Subchapter III of Chapter

33 of title 5 of the United States Code, to depart from this Executive

Order in designating an acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31669

Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

Sec. 4. 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 18, 2001.

Executive Order 11487 of October 6, 1969, is hereby revoked.

W