alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
103 A.3d 800

#### IN THE MATTER OF EFTHEMOIS D. VELAHOS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 038341989).

December 12, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-055, concluding that EFTHEMOIS D. VELA-HOS of WOODBURY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991, should be censured for violating *RPC*5.4(b) (partnership with a non-lawyer in the practice of law), *RPC*5.5(a)(1) (failure to maintain liability insurance while practicing as a limited liability company and practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), *RPC*8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer) and *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that EFTHEMOIS D. VELAHOS is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis C. DEGUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10655.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 23, 2008.

Robert L. Miskell, Danny N. Roetzel, Esq., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconeini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jack L. Lansdale, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Jack L. Lansdale, Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

Luis C. DeGuzman appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to file false, fictitious or fraudulent claims with an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

DeGuzman contends that the district court violated his due process rights by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c), based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed. *See United States v. Clark,*452 F.3d 1082, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2006) (rejecting constitutional challenges to use of the preponderance of the evidence standard for resolving factual disputes at sentencing).

DeGuzman also contends that the district court should not have applied the enhancement because there was insufficient evidence that the people whom he supervised were “participants” as defined by the Guidelines. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by determining that DeGuzman’s assistant and two of his clients were “criminally responsible for the commission of the offense.” *See*U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c), cmt. n. 1; *see also United States v. Syrax,*235 F.3d 422, 426-28 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Foundry Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Timothy D. Heffner, 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:

|(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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                           
| | ------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Timothy D. Heffner                    
| | Timothy D. Heffner                        
| | Vice President Finance and Administration,
| | Chief Financial Officer                   
| | November 14, 2003
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Hamon, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Hamon,*139 Ohio St.3d 314, 2014-Ohio-1927.]

(No. 2013-0830

Submitted April 30, 2014

Decided May 15, 2014.)

Carol O’Brien, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and Douglas N. Du-molt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded for application of *State v. Anderson,*138 Ohio St.3d 264, 2014-Ohio-542, 6 N.E.3d 23.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
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. Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC and Secretary of Labor v. Michael Butler, employed by Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC and Secretary of Labor v. Michael Butler, employed by Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC

Peabody Midwest LAKE 2019-0023 Argument Notice 7-14-22.pdf

Peabody Midwest, LAKE 2019-0023, Argument Notice 7-14-22.htm

Commission Oral Argument_Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC and Butler, Docket Nos. LAKE 2019-0023, 2019-0122, 2019-0361_07-14-2022.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
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-1919

JAMES M. DELUCIA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.

Michael J. Kelley on brief for appellant.

Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney and Anita Johnson,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

March 17, 2006
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and

record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by

the district court. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s

determination that the appellant’s pain and visual impairments

engendered no severe, nonexertional limitation. Heggarty v.

Sullivan, 947 F.2d 990 (1 Cir. 1991); Oritz v. Sec’y Health & st

Human Serv., 890 F.2d 520 (1 Cir. 1989). Although the medical st

record for the insured period documented pain and severe

impairment, it documented no severe, nonexertional limit.

Moreover, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that the appellant’s

activities were inconsistent with any such limitation. Substantial

evidence supported the decision. Rodriquez v. Sec’y Health & Human

Serv., 647 F.2d 218 (1 Cir. 1981). st

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

-2-
#### Samuel J. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden EAGLETON, Individual and official capacities; Warden Chavis, Associate Warden, Individual and official capacities; Ms. Weatherford, Individual and official capacities; Mr. Spires, Individual and official capacities; Lieutenant Hipp, Individual and official capacities; Ms. Hage, Nurse Supervisor, Individual and official capacities; Officer Cypress; Officer Matthews, Individual and official capacities; Eci Medical Staff, Individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.

No. 10-6396.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 10, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 9, 2010.

Samuel J. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Lawrence S. Kerr, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. Lewis also appeals the magistrate judge’s denials of his motions to appoint counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm those orders. *Lewis v. Eagleton,*No. 4:08-cv-02800-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2009; Mar. 9, 2009).

Turning to the district court’s order denying § 1983 relief, the court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 *741U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lewis that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see *also Thomas v. Am,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Lewis has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Organizational Development - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RgfUMQCOWh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/building-labor-management-relationships\/organizational-development\/\">Organizational Development<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/building-labor-management-relationships\/organizational-development\/embed\/#?secret=RgfUMQCOWh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Organizational Development” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"RgfUMQCOWh\" 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"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michelle Angelic MADRID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-40487

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 21, 2016.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michelle Angelic Madrid has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Madrid has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant *236portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion ■ for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th cir, 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 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. KENNETH B. DAVENPORT, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 280 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gwendolyn Cheek HEDGEPETH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6168.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 29, 2008.

Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*234PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hedgepeth has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hedgepeth’s “Motion for Suspension of the Finality of Judgment/the Enforcement of New Orders Pending Appeal,” deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hedgepeth’s motion for 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.*
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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/ Michael J. Keough                
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  |     |  | Michael J. Keough                    
|                       |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Statement on Tentative Agreement Between Brigham and Women\u2019s Hospital and the Massachusetts Nurses Association - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4ads4eekTH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-statement-tentative-agreement-brigham-womens-hospital-massachusetts-nurses-association\/\">FMCS Statement on Tentative Agreement Between Brigham and Women\u2019s Hospital and the Massachusetts Nurses Association<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-statement-tentative-agreement-brigham-womens-hospital-massachusetts-nurses-association\/embed\/#?secret=4ads4eekTH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Statement on Tentative Agreement Between Brigham and Women\u2019s Hospital and the Massachusetts Nurses Association” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"4ads4eekTH\" 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":"WASHINGTON, DC\u2014Allison Beck, Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), issued the following statement today on the announcement that a tentative agreement had been reached in negotiations between Brigham and Women\u2019s Hospital (BWH) in Boston, MA and the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA), averting a strike by approximately 3,300 care-givers at the hospital planned […]"}