alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No s . 06 - 15 - 00012 - CR 06 - 15 - 00013 - CR, 06 - 15 - 00014 - CR, 06 - 15 - 00015 - CR, 06 - 15 - 00016 - CR & 06 - 15 - 00017 - CR GARY CHRISTOPHER MORROW, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County, Texas Trial Court No s . CR - 13 - 24716 , CR - 13 - 24717, CR - 13 - 24718, CR - 13 - 24719, CR - 13 - 24720 & CR - 13 - 24722 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Gary Christopher Morrow appeals from his convictions of one count of aggravated sexual assault, one count of burglary of a habitation, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The clerk’s record in these matters was filed June 26, 2015, and the reporter’s record was filed June 29, making Morrow’s appellate brief (s) originally due July 27. This deadline was extended twice by this Court on the motion of Morrow’s appellate counsel, Micah Belden, resulting in the most recent due date o f September 28. Belden has now filed a third motion seeking an additional extension of the briefing deadline. We have reviewed Belden’s third motion to extend time as well as the appellate record in these cases, and we find no compelling information to convince us that Morrow’s brief ing requires additional time to prepare. Consequently, Belden’s third motion to extend time to file Morrow’s appellate brief

(s) is overruled. We order Belden to file Morrow’s appellat e brief (s) with this Court on or before October 20, 201 5 . IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT Date: October 6, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                           2,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (173)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,243
<PP&E>                                           6,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,530)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           310
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,508
<SALES>                                         15,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,674
<CGS>                                            9,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (846)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Direction for Review - Richmond Sand & Stone, LLC              

#   Direction for Review - Richmond Sand & Stone, LLC

On January 31, 2019, the Commission granted the petition for discretionary review filed by Richmond Sand & Stone, LLC for Docket No. YORK 2018-31.

PDR(Richmond Sand  Stone LLC)YORK 2018-0013-M.pdf

DFR (Richmond Sand & Stone LLC) YORK 2018-0031.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
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. Dawes Rigging & Crane Rental              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Dawes Rigging & Crane Rental

Dawes Rigging LAKE 2011-206-M Meeting Notice 9-11-14.pdf

Dawes Rigging, LAKE 2011-206-M, Meeting Notice 9-11-14.htm

secretary-labor-v.dawes-rigging-crane-docket-lake2011-206-m.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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Craig Lamario MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40979

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

*935Craig Lamario Mosley, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Craig Lamario Mosley, federal prisoner #21362-009, was convicted of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute and received the statutory minimum sentence of 240 months. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines governing crack cocaine. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

Because Mosley was sentenced to a mandatory statutory minimum, the district court lacked authority to grant a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 579-81 (5th Cir.2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment (n. 1(A)). Mosley’s reliance on the principles set forth in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is without merit; *Booker*is inapplicable to a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 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.
74 A.3d 120

#### Robert GROGAN JP-6963, aka John L. Capps, Jr., Petitioner v. The Honorable Thomas F. GEHRET, Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Respondent.

No. 85 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 29, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are GRANTED. The lower court is directed to dispose of Petitioner’s Post Conviction Relief Act petition within 90 days of this order. The Prothonotary is directed to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         678,350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,211,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                   110,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,870,484
<PP&E>                                       5,651,186
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,334,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,948,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,021,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,044
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,638,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,948,294
<SALES>                                     29,443,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,443,302
<CGS>                                       14,941,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,221,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,128,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                   489,955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            638,195
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   638,195
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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. Twentymile Coal Company, Docket No. WEST 2007 892 E              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Twentymile Coal Company, Docket No. WEST 2007 892 E

argument_060508.pdf

argument_060508.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
1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-9095

Summary Calendar.

Louie ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TEXAS STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS, et al., Defendants,

William E. Maddox, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Sept. 6, 1994.

Appeal f rom the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

This action was filed in 1989 by Louie Armstrong alleging

various causes of action relating to the termination of his

employment with the Texas State Board of Barber Examiners. In lieu

of an answer, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss based, inter

alia, on qualified immunity. The motion was granted in part but

was denied as to the defense of qualified immunity. According to

the district court docket sheet, there was no activity in the case

until 1992 when the parties announced that the case had settled and

it was dismissed. Several months later, however, Armstrong,

asserting that the settlement h ad collapsed, moved to reopen the

case and to amend his complaint. Thereafter, the parties entered

a scheduling order, and Armstrong moved to compel the defendants to

respond to his discovery requests. The defendants then filed a

motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and a1 This is the only difference identified by the defendants in

the supplemental brief requested by the court to address the

implications of Phillips v. Montgomery County.

2 motion to stay discovery. The district court again denied the

claim of qualified immunity and the defendants filed their notice

of appeal.

In Phillips v. Montgomery County, 24 F.3d 736 (5th Cir.1994),

we held that defendants cannot fail to appeal the denial of

qualified im munity and then "restart the appellate clock by

refiling substantially the same motion." Here, it is clear that

the defendant s' motion to dismiss and the motion for summary

judgment raise the same defense, that is, that they are entitled to

qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not asserted the

deprivation of a constitutional right. Further, neither motion

relies on material outside the pleadings; nor were any new

pleadings filed after the first motion to dismiss.

In the end, the two motions are only distinguishable because

they are brought under different rules and are guided by different

standards of review. 1 These asserted differences are, however,

illusory. The motion to dismiss, brought before any discovery was

conducted in the case, is primarily a vehicle to test the

sufficiency of the pleadings as to qualified immunity. S ee Jackson

v. City of Beaumont, 958 F.2d 616, 168 (5th Cir.1992). That motion

was denied. The second motion, although styled a motion for

summary judgment was simply another motion addressing the

pleadings, as evidenced by the defendants' motion to stay

discovery. Under these unique circumstances, the two motions are3

substantially the same. Accordingly, this appeal is untimely and

is therefore

DISMISSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius Marcellus GREEN, a.k.a. DD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-16491.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Dale Ernest Akins, Akins Law Firm, LLC, Bluffton, SC, for Defendant-Appellant.

James C. Stuchell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, R. Brian Tanner, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Marcellus Green appeals his sentence of 194 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, Green argues that the district court clearly erred in determining the drug quantity for which he was held accountable for purposes of calculating his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

We review a district court’s factual determination of the drug quantity attributable to a defendant for clear error. *United States v. Rodriguez,*398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir.2005). “In estimating the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant, a court may base its computation on evidence showing the average frequency and amount of a defendant’s drug sales over a given period of time.” *United States v. Frazier,*89 F.3d 1501, 1506 (11th Cir.1996). “Although sentencing may be based on fair, accurate, and conservative estimates of the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant, sentencing cannot be based on calculations of drug quantities that are merely speculative.” *United States v. Zapata,*139 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.1998).

*403In this case, the probation officer calculated the drug quantity for which Green was accountable by relying on an estimate provided by Green’s drug supplier, Telly Petty. Petty later testified at Green’s sentencing hearing and provided a more conservative estimate. Green argues that the district court erred by adopting the probation officer’s drug-quantity calculation, rather than using Petty’s sworn testimony to calculate the drug quantity.

We find no reversible error. As the government correctly explains in its brief, even if the district court used the most conservative figures from Petty’s testimony, Green’s base offense level would have remained the same. Thus, even if the court erred by adopting the probation officer’s drug-quantity calculation, any such error was harmless. We further reject Green’s suggestion that Petty’s varying estimates rendered him unreliable.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, S. Kumar
Chandrasekaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operation of InSite Vision Incorporated.



By:

/s/    S. KUMAR CHANDRASEKARAN, PH.D.Name:

S. Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.Title:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

March 30, 2004




I, S. Kumar
Chandrasekaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operation of InSite Vision Incorporated.



By:

/s/    S. KUMAR CHANDRASEKARAN, PH.D.Name:

S. Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.Title:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 30, 2004