alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Friday, October 24, 2014 Contact: John Arnold

For Immediate Release Director of Public Affairs

Web site: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8100

FMCS Again Ranks Among Best Workplaces

In Small and Independent Federal Agencies

WASHINGTON, D.C. —The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) again this 

year ranks among the top small or independent agencies as one of the best places to work in the 

Federal government, according to survey results released by the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). The survey, officially the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS) Government-wide Management Report, is administered by OPM annually, and 

illuminates employees’ opinions about their jobs, working conditions, their supervisors and their 

leadership.

“I am extremely proud that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has again been 

recognized among the best places to work in the Federal government,” said FMCS Acting 

Director Allison Beck. “FMCS employees are devoted to the Agency’s standards of excellence 

and vital mission -- helping federal, public and private sector workplaces manage conflict and 

deliver improved products and services to their customers. This recognition is demonstrative of 

a workplace that encourages a spirit of teamwork and public service, and it validates our 

continuing emphasis, both with the customers we serve and our dedicated employees, on open 

communications, transparency, and joint problem-solving.”

The 2014 FEVS was administered from April to June 2014, with 392,752 employees from 82 

agencies participating. It provides agencies with insights to help them better understand 

employee trends. 

The FMCS achieved high scores and ranked among the top five finishers among small and 

independent agencies in key individual categories, specifically “global satisfaction,” which 

measures overall employee satisfaction, and “new IQ,” which measures agency inclusiveness 

and openness, based on employee responses to survey questions. 

###

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, created in 1947, is an independent U.S. government 

agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and cooperation. 

Headquartered in Washington, DC, with 10 district offices and more than 60 field offices, the agency 

provides mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies and communities.

NEWS RELEASE

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6519

BERNARD FELDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner, South Carolina

Department of Corrections; CHARLES MOLONY

CONDON, Attorney General for the State of

South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-287-3-20BD)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Felder

v. Moore, No. CA-94-287-3-20BD (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 1995). 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
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 
-                   COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan              

#   COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan

COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan_July 2022_pdf.pdf

COVID-19 Testing Policy_July 2022_pdf.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
Exhibit
23.1
 
 Consent
of Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (No. 333-38266, No. 333-54912, No. 333-116973, No. 333-126084, No.
333-130248, No. 333-131744 and No. 333-137994) and the Registration Statements
on Forms S-8 (No. 33-75268, No. 33-80662, No. 33-93394, No. 333-29801, No.
333-60057, No. 333-79789, No. 333-43504, No. 333-72098, No. 333-117193, No.
333-126083, No. 333-133010 and No. 333-143016) of InSite Vision Incorporated of
our reports dated March 13, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements which appear in this Form 10-K.
 
 /s/  Burr,
Pilger & Mayer LLP
 
 San
Francisco, California
 March 13,
2009
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 I, Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:  (1)
    
    The accompanying annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Continucare
Corporation. Date:
September 28, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.RICHARD C. PFENNIGER, JR.President and Chief Executive Officer
 1
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00739-CV

In the Interest of D.K., K.K. and H.K., Children

On Appeal from the

438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011-CI-13484

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 1, 2015
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, B.
Michael Adler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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. By:
    
    /s/ B. Michael AdlerName: B. Michael AdlerTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
 August 12, 2004
#### In re: Terry Jackson BENNETT, Petitioner.

No. 10-2026.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

Terry Jackson Bennett, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by'unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry Jackson Bennett petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has denied Bennett’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Bennett’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
EXHIBIT
32.1.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











The
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their
knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007
of HemaCare Corporation (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.





Very
truly yours,








/s/
John Doumitt


John
Doumitt


Chief
Executive Officer








/s/
Robert S. Chilton


Robert
S. Chilton


Chief
Financial Officer








Dated:  March
25, 2009











A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to HemaCare Corporation and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Glenn BOLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10329

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Ramona C. Albin, Mary Anne Gallagher, Joseph Paul Montminy, Joyce White Vance, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Carl Neff, Sims & Neff, LLC, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James L. O’Kelley, appointed counsel for Michael Glenn Bole, filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bole’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,170,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                   600,153
<INVENTORY>                                    748,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,969,022
<PP&E>                                       3,647,542
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,217,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,507,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,115,502
<BONDS>                                      1,273,691
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       117,953
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,507,146
<SALES>                                      3,723,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,723,929
<CGS>                                        2,720,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  862,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,694
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,037
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,037
<DISCONTINUED>                                (30,380)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,657
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STEVEN ALLEN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00265-CR

Appeal from

426th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC # 75,020)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steven Curtis Allen attempts to appeal his conviction of forgery by passing, enhanced by 

two prior felony convictions. Finding that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is 

due within thirty days after the sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an 

appealable order. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline is extended to ninety days after the 

date the sentence is imposed in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. 

See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(2). The judgment of conviction reflects that sentence was imposed in 

open court on April 7, 2016. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice 

of appeal was due to be filed no later than May 7, 2016, thirty days after the date sentence was 
- 2 -

imposed in open court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal 

until September 14, 2016, more than four months after the deadline. 

Appellant has filed a document explaining that he informed trial counsel he desired to 

appeal, but counsel did not file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Additionally, Appellant states 

that he mistakenly sent his pro se notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. This Court 

does not have authority to grant Appellant an out-of-time appeal. Because Appellant did not 

timely file his notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

October 27, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                          361
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   293
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     1,266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,090
<PP&E>                          8,435
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  19,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,087
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        36
<OTHER-SE>                      7,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    19,282
<SALES>                         214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                214
<CGS>                           145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (712)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (712)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (712)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.02)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
                                      Code)

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Merchants Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form 10-K") that:

            (1)   the Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2005                   By:/s/ Robert M. Zak
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Robert M. Zak, Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Operating Officer
                                        (chief executive officer)

Dated: March 30, 2005                   By:/s/ Kenneth J. Wilson
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Kenneth J. Wilson, Vice President & CFO
                                        (chief financial officer)
#### Narinder Pal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74925.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 22, 2008.

Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony V. Teelucksingh, U.S. Dept of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*532Before: 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 **

Narinder Pal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s order denying asylum. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that Singh’s asylum application was untimely because that determination turns on a disputed question of fact. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contentions regarding changed circumstances, extraordinary circumstances, and alleged due process violations by the IJ because Singh failed to exhaust them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of Comverse Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen M. Swad, as Executive 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Stephen M. SwadStephen M. SwadExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


October 4, 2010

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.