alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

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

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Small Mine Development,              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Small Mine Development,

SMD WEST 2011-1351-M Argument Notice 12-18-14.pdf

SMD WEST 2011-1351-M Argument Notice 12-18-14.htm

Secretary of Labor v Small Mine Development Docket WEST 2011-1351-M et al 10am.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
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 on Form 10-Q (the "Report") of ARC
Wireless Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,
each of the undersigned Randall P. Marx, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Monty R. Lamirato, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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 the best of the
undersigneds'knowledge and belief:

     (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.



Dated:  May 13, 2005                            /s/ Randall P. Marx
                                                ---------------------------
                                                    Randall P. Marx
                                                    Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 13, 2005                            /s/ Monty R. Lamirato
                                                ---------------------------
                                                    Monty R. Lamirato
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### PRESIDENT and DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE, a corporation, Appellant, v. Thomas Patrick HEALY, an infant, by and through his father and next friend, James D. Healy, and James D. Healy, Appellees.

No. 13682.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 31, 1957.

Decided June 6, 1957.

Mr. Daniel J. Andersen, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Arthur J. Plilland, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Ferdinand J. Mack, *786Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Georgetown College appeals from the judgment entered on a jury’s verdict which awarded damages for injuries sustained on its premises by a child about three and one-half years old. Through an open door, the small boy entered a locker room adjacent to a ladies’ rest room, where his mother had taken him. A bank of three tall steel lockers, not fastened to the floor or wall and tilted slightly forward, fell upon him and inflicted a serious head wound.

Appellant argues, *inter alia,,*that no negligence was shown and that tardy filing of a costs bond was improperly permitted. We have considered these contentions and the other reasons for reversal advanced by the appellant, but cannot accept them. We see no error.

Affirmed.
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. Wolf Run Mining Company Docket No. No.WEVA 2008-804.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Company Docket No. No.WEVA 2008-804.

meeting_030410.pdf

meeting030410.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
# 2021 FOIA Logs
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

June 10, 2014

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 18, 2014

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Docket 

Nos. SE 2008-881, et al. (Issues include whether the 

Administrative Law Judge erred by assessing a civil penalty that 

was substantially lower than the proposed penalty.) The public 

meeting originally scheduled at this time for Secretary of Labor v. 

Emerald Coal Resources, Docket No. PENN 2009-697, and 

consolidated cases has been postponed.

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3494 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 

review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2021 

Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. BUCK, Mr. LAMBORN, 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER, and Mr. PALMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature 

of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory 

and regulatory provisions. 

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 ‘‘Separation of Powers 

5 Restoration Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGU7 LATORY INTERPRETATIONS. 

8 Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3494 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘To the extent necessary’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘(a) To the extent necessary’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘decide all relevant questions of 

4 law, interpret constitutional and statutory provi5 sions, and’’; 

6 (3) by inserting after ‘‘of the terms of an agen7 cy action’’ the following ‘‘and decide de novo all rel8 evant questions of law, including the interpretation 

9 of constitutional and statutory provisions, and rules 

10 made by agencies. Notwithstanding any other provi11 sion of law, this subsection shall apply in any action 

12 for judicial review of agency action authorized under 

13 any provision of law. No law may exempt any such 

14 civil action from the application of this section ex15 cept by specific reference to this section’’; and 

16 (4) by striking ‘‘The reviewing court shall—’’ 

17 and inserting the following: 

18 ‘‘(b) The reviewing court shall—’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,989,580
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,829,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,061,468
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,220,820
<PP&E>                                       1,334,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                 158,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,851,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,721,464
<BONDS>                                      2,511,918
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,089
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,616,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,851,309
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,916,385
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,348,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,836,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,818,293
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,907,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,200,917
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,706,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,706,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
74 A.3d 1024

#### Mark CHARNET, Petitioner v. BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, Respondent.

No. 66 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 9, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2013, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

INSURANCE COMPANY

,

Appellant,

v.

BARBARA HOFFMEYER

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2761

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Brad Stetson , Judge

.

Dennis P. D ore of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Jacksonville , for Appellant.

Michelline Hayn es Ruth and Joseph S. Miller of Ronald E. Sholes, P.A.,

Jacksonville , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., an d LEWIS and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
CERTIFICATIONS

                          I, Basil Parker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bioaccelerate Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 15, 2003



                                        /s/ Basil Parker
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Basil Parker
                                        President & Director
#### Kelby SHEPPARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6972.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.

Kelby Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad Williamson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

*779Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kelby Sheppard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sheppard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     BD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-26-1998
<CASH>                                           3,223,431
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,785,960
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                      0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            6,224,000
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             12,470,571
<PP&E>                                           4,993,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,992,763
<SHORT-TERM>                                    18,900,000
<PAYABLES>                                     109,138,421
<REPOS-SOLD>                                             0
<SECURITIES-LOANED                               3,117,691
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               2,550,751
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           327,767
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,958,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,992,763
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               15,410,960
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             9,870,634
<COMMISSIONS>                                   53,323,402
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUE>                    14,228,186
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   11,615,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,960,308
<COMPENSATION>                                  67,078,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,119,921
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,781,921
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,781,921
<EPS-BASIC>                                           1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.67
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Bay National Corporation
      (the “Company”) each certifies, pursuant to his knowledge, that the Company’s
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and that the information contained in that Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.








/s/Hugh
      W. Mohler





Hugh
      W.
      Mohler


Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer


November
      13, 2006













/s/
      Mark
      A. Semanie





Mark
      A.
      Semanie


Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November
      13, 2006





This
      certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
      document, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any
      reason other than as specifically required by law.