alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-5254]

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on August 23, 2001, in response to a petition filed by the company on behalf of workers at Fashion Works, Inc., Dallas, Texas.

The petitioner requests the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of December, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-31630 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
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. Newmont USA Limited              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Newmont USA Limited

Newmont, WEST 2010-652, Meeting Notice 10-16-14.doc Date.pdf

Newmont, WEST 2010-652, Meeting Notice 10-16-14.doc Date.htm

secretary-labor-v.newmont-usa-docket-west2010-652-rm-et-al.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: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3468 

To amend the CARES Act to expand a national awareness and outreach 

campaign to address the importance and safety of plasma donation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2021 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. WENSTRUP) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the CARES Act to expand a national awareness 

and outreach campaign to address the importance and 

safety of plasma donation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Plasma Donation 

5 Awareness Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPORTANCE OF THE BLOOD AND PLASMA SUPPLY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3226 of the CARES Act 

8 (Public Law 116–136) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3468 IH

1 (1) in the section heading, by inserting ‘‘AND

2 PLASMA’’ after ‘‘BLOOD’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting after ‘‘blood’’ each time it ap4 pears ‘‘and plasma’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating 

6 to section 3226 in the table of contents in section 2 of 

7 the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) is amended to read 

8 as follows: 

‘‘Sec. 3226. Importance of the blood and plasma supply.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### w8 lCUZ'b'S<Q(o "T>«n. -Court- Cfetb, 

# f,«r 4~ -^/^ ;f*y ^ ^ *"JRECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FEB 13 2015 Abel Acosfa, Clerk
y fam T??5
* 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 December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20849 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNNY LEE PRUDHOMME, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-329-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender, appointed counsel for Johnny Lee Prudhomme, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Prudhomme has not responded to counsel’s motion and brief. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
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 
-                   Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, LLC              

#   Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, LLC

On January 22, 2020, the Commission issued its decision in *Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina*, LLC, Docket No. CENT 2015-279-DM.  

Commission-Decision(McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina LLC)CENT 2015-279-DM.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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MCCLEOD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-5022.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 27, 2008.

*273Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Office of the United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David McCleod appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to ten months’ imprisonment. McCleod’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that the district court erred in ordering revocation and sentencing McCleod based on supervised release violations. McCleod has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. McCleod admitted to violations of his supervised release, and his sentence, which was within the advisory guidelines range, was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,590<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     89,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,100
<PP&E>                                         718,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                 234,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 878,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,939
<BONDS>                                        436,198<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,548
<OTHER-SE>                                     268,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   878,775
<SALES>                                        641,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               641,313
<CGS>                                          487,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  487,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,111
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,786
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,786
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES ARE PRESENTED NET OF THE ALLOWANCES FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.
<F2>BONDS REPRESENT REVOLVING CREDIT LOANS AND LONG-TERM DEBT, LESS CURRENT
MATURITIES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09

- 15

- 00447

- CR



### ____________________

DARRELL RAY YATES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____________________________________ _____________________________ ____ __

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

San Jacinto County, Texas

Trial Cause No . 11,484

_____________________________________________________________________ _ __

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Darrel l Ray Yates (Y ates ) guilty of injury to an elderly

individual, and the trial court assessed punishment at five years of confinement.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2016 ). Yates timely filed a notice

of appeal.

Yates’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.2

1978). On September 2, 2016, we granted an extension of time for Yates to file a

pro se brief. We received no response from Yates.

We have independently examin ed the entire appellate record in this matter,

and we agree tha t no arguable issues support an appeal. We h ave determined that

this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on December 5 , 2016

Opinion Deliver ed December 7, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

1 Yates may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Institute - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RE7VhY9mUy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/fmcs-institute\/\">FMCS Institute<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/fmcs-institute\/embed\/#?secret=RE7VhY9mUy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Institute” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"RE7VhY9mUy\" 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"}
#### Earl E. GRAHAM, as PR of Faye Dale Graham, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, individually and as successor by merger to the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and The American Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al., Defendants.

No. 13-14590.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 2, 2016.

Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Kenneth S. Byrd, Jordan S. Elias, Richard M. Heim-ann, Kent L. Klaudt, Sarah Robin London, Robert J. Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann *&*Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Samuel Issacharoff, New York University School of Law, New York, NY, Frederick C. Baker, Rebecca M. Deupree, Donald Alan Migliori, Lance V. Oliver, Motley Rice, LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Kathryn E. Barnett, Law Office of Morgan & Morgan, Nashville, TN, Janna M. Blasingame, Stephanie J. Hartley, Richard Lantinberg, Edward I. Warren, Norwood Wilner, The Wilner Firm, PA, Charles Easa Farah, Jr., Farah *&*Farah, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appelle.

Gregory G. Katsas, Hilary R. Mehrkam, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Stephanie Ethel Parker, David M. Monde, John M., Walker, John F. Yarber, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, Keri Arnold, Arnold & Porter, LLP, New York, NY, Cecilia M. Bidwell, William Patrick Geraghty, James B. Murphy, Jr., Shook Hardy *&*Bacon, LLP, Tampa, FL, Dana G. Bradford, II, Smith Gambrell *&*Russell, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, Andrew Brenner, Karen C. Dyer, Mark Jurgen Heise, Stephen N. Zack, Boies Schiller *&*Flexner, LLP, Miami, FL, Joshua Reuben Brown, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Orlando, FL, Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Bonnie C. Daboll, Cathy Ambersley Kamm, Terri Lynn Parker, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Tampa, FL, Timothy James Fiorta, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Khalil Gharbieh, David E. Kouba, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, Stacey Koch Lieberman, Hughes Hubbard *&*Reed, LLP, Miami, FL, Charles Richard Allan Morse, Jones Day, New York, NY, Robert B. Parrish, J.W. Prichard, Jr., David C. Reeves, Jeffrey Alan Yarbrough, Moseley Prichard Parrish Knight & Jones, Jacksonville, FL, Kenneth J. Reilly, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Miami, FL, Stephanie . Sowers Sankar, Connor Jay Sears, Shook Hardy *&*Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellants.

Before TJOFLAT, Acting Chief Judge, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

In an earlier order of this Court, we granted a petition for rehearing en bane in this case. After that order was issued, Chief Judge Carnes discovered that he may be recused and, in an abundance of caution to avoid any appearance of impropriety, .he has recused himself from any participation in the decision of this case.

This court’s earlier order granting rehearing en banc is therefore VACATED. As a majority of the judges of this Court in *435active service and eligible to hear it have voted in favor of granting rehearing en banc, it is ORDERED that this case will be reheard en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED.
108 A.3d 629

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTONIO INACIO, A JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT.

February 26, 2015.

ORDER

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*2:15—15(a), a presentment recommending that ANTONIO INACIO, a Judge of the Municipal Court for the Borough of Garwood and the Townships of Clark and Scotch Plains, be publicly reprimanded for violating *Canon*1 (a judge should personally observe high standards of conduct so the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved), *Canon*2A (a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity a impartiality of the judiciary), *Canon*2B (a judge should not use the judicial office to advance a private or personal interest) of the *Code of Judicial Conduct*and *Rule*1:15—1(b) (a municipal court judge shall not act as an attorney for the municipality where he is serving or for any agency or officer thereof);

And the Committee having determined that the conduct of respondent in respect of a Garwood Borough councilman does not constitute the appearance of impropriety charged as a violation of *Canon*2B of the *Code*in Count I of the Formal Complaint, and having recommended that said charge be dismissed;

And respondent, through counsel, having accepted the findings and recommendation for discipline of the Committee and having waived his right to the issuance of an Order to Show Cause and a hearing before the Supreme Court;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct are adopted and ANTONIO INACIO, a Judge of the Municipal Court, is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

*570ORDERED that the charge of violation of *Canon*2B for an alleged appearance of impropriety in respect of the Garwood councilman is hereby dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence.