alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FINCH v. ROSE.

No. 4603.

Opinion Filed January 13, 1914.

Released for Publication January 14, 1915.

APPEAL — Failure to File Briefs. Affirmed on account of failure of plaintiff in error to comply with rule 25 of this court (20 Okla. 12, 95 Pac. 8.)

('Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from District Court, Roger Mills ¡County; E. D. Tracey, Special Judge. ■*

*398*Moore & Mouser,*for plaintiff in error.

*D. F. Tracey,*for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

Rule XXY of this court requires that the brief of the plaintiff in error:

> «* * * shall contain an abstract or abridgement of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court.”

In this proceeding in error the action of the trial court in dismissing an appeal from a justice of the peace court on account of a defect in the appeal bond is sought to be reviewed. The body of the appeal bond is nowhere set out in plaintiff in error’s brief, and we are unable to determine whether there was error committed without examining the case-made. This court has repeatedly held that when the plaintiff in error fails to comply with this rule the proceeding will either be dismissed or the judgment of the lower court affirmed. *(Ebey v. Krause,*35 Okla. 689; *Seminole Township Co. v. Town of Seminole et al., Id.,*554; *Scoville et ux. v. Powell et al.,*33 Okla. 446; *Lawless v. Pitchford, Id.,*633; *Williams v. Haycraft, Id.,*697; *Fire Assn. of Philadelphia v .Bryant & Whistler et al., Id.,*698; *Arkansas Valley Nat. Bank v. Clark,*31 Okla. 413.)

The defendant in error in its brief raises the question as to the deficiency in the abstract or brief of the plaintiff in error, but no move on his part has been made to correct the same.

It follows that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

All the Justices 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 
-                   Long Branch Energy v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. WEVA 2009-1492-R, et al.               

#   Long Branch Energy v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. WEVA 2009-1492-R, et al. 

argument_041712.pdf

meeting_041712.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
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-214-000]

Take notice that on January 26, 2001, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective February 26, 2001.

Second Revised Sheet No. 254

Third Revised Sheet No. 255

Third Revised Sheet No. 256

Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to propose changes to Northwest's tariff provisions related to facilities reimbursement procedures associated with the construction of laterals.

Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Northwest's customers and interested state regulatory commission.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-3143  Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Revocations and Surrenders – September 1, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JYApYPFByI\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-september-1-2017\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – September 1, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-september-1-2017\/embed\/#?secret=JYApYPFByI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – September 1, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"JYApYPFByI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
* 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60840

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUS ALLEN, JR., also known

as Sealed Defendant 1,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CR-91-ALL-B-N

--------------------

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The district court permitted Gus Allen, Jr., to file this

out-of-time appeal from his 1995 conviction and sentence, after a

jury trial, for distribution of cocaine base (in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)). 

For the first time on appeal, Allen contends that the

district court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines’

enhanced penalty provisions for cocaine base because the

Government allegedly failed to prove by a preponderance of the 
No. 97-60840

-2-

evidence that the substance involved was “crack” cocaine. 

See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), note (D) (definition of “cocaine base”

means “crack”). Because trial testimony by both a confidential

informant and an undercover drug-enforcement agent showed that

the substance involved was “crack” cocaine, the evidence was more

than sufficient to warrant enhanced sentencing. See United

States v. Canada, 110 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1997) (Government

must prove sentencing factors by a preponderance of the

evidence). Accordingly, Allen’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           4,279
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,542
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,263)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      00
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (651)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         154,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,850)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,404
<PP&E>                                         106,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                (35,471)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 357,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           241
<OTHER-SE>                                     283,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   357,466
<SALES>                                          1,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,181
<CGS>                                            1,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   753
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,190)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Markel Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-28921, No. 33-46706 and No. 33-61598 on Form S-8 and No. 333-21633 on Form
S-4 of Markel Corporation of our report dated February 2, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Markel Corporation and subsidiaries (the
"Company") as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income, changes in shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1998, which report appears in the Company's 1998 annual report on Form 10-K.

                                                /s/  KPMG LLP
                                             --------------------------

Richmond, Virginia
March 24, 1999
#### James F. NEWPORT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Siemens Generation Services Company; Michael McCormick, President, Respondents.

No. 10-1572.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 30, 2010.

James F. Newport, Blue Springs, MO, pro se.

Paul L. Frieden, Roger W. Wilkinson, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, Jeffrey P. Ray, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, James G. Brown Ford *&*Harrison, Orlando, FL, for Respondents.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Newport petitions for review of a final order of the Department of Labor *101Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) dismissing his administrative appeal for failure to prosecute. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the ARB’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. *See*49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4)(A) (this court reviews ARB’s decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency decisions if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if unsupported by substantial evidence in record as whole); *see also Allen v. Admin. Revieio Bd.,*514 F.3d 468, 476 (5th Cir.2008) (ARB’s conclusions of law are reviewed *de*novo). Accordingly, we deny the petition. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny all pending motions.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3197 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the City of Eunice, 

Louisiana, certain Federal land in Louisiana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2021 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the 

City of Eunice, Louisiana, certain Federal land in Louisiana, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save the Liberty The5 atre Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) CITY.—The term ‘‘City’’ means the City of 

9 Eunice, Louisiana. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3197 IH

1 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en2 titled ‘‘Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 

3 Preserve, Proposed Boundary Revision and Dis4 posal’’, numbered 467/168813, and dated December 

5 2020. 

6 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

7 the Secretary of the Interior. 

8 SEC. 3. LAND CONVEYANCE. 

9 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall 

10 convey to the City, by quitclaim deed and without consid11 eration, all right, title, and interest of the United States 

12 in and to the parcels of land described in subsection (b). 

13 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcels of land re14 ferred to in subsection (a) are Lots 5 and 6, less the North 

15 27 feet of Lot 5, Block 22, of the Original Townsite of 

16 Eunice, generally depicted as ‘‘Proposed Disposal Area’’ 

17 on the map. 

18 (c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file 

19 and available for public inspection in the appropriate of20 fices of the National Park Service. 

21 SEC. 4. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS. 

22 Upon the conveyance to the City of the land described 

23 in section 3(b), the boundary of the Jean Lafitte National 

24 Historical Park and Preserve shall be adjusted to ex25 clude— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3197 IH

1 (1) the conveyed land; and 

2 (2) Lots 7 and 8 of the Original Townsite of 

3 Eunice generally depicted as ‘‘Non-NPS in Current 

4 Boundary’’ on the map. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### CLESS et al. v. COOK et al.

No. 34641.

July 5, 1950.

*219 P. 2d 995.*

Cox & Buhrman, of Blackwell, for plaintiffs in error.

Don B. Stallings, of Caldwell, Kans., and Drennan & Eddy, of Medford, for defendants in error.

JOHNSON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Grant county rendered on the 27th day of April, 1949. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 9th day of June, 1949. The petition in error with-case-made attached was filed in this court on April 24, 1950.

The defendants in error have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason this proceeding was not commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or order overruling the motion for new trial. 12 O. S. 1941 §972 provides that all proceedings for reversing, vacating or modifying a judgment or final order shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of.

In the case of Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Austin, 161 Okla. 280, 18 P. 2d 539, the syllabus is as follows:

> “Where a petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of six months from the date of the judgment or order appealed from, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

To like effect, see Gilmore v. Smith, 93 Okla. 4, 219 P. 92; Verschoyle v. McDaniels, 127 Okla. 166, 260 P. 55; Williams et al. v. Local Building & Loan Ass’n of Oklahoma City, 165 Okla. 244, 25 P. 2d 1086; Bishop v. Harris, 168 Okla. 626, 34 P. 2d 243.

The time in which to file the appeal in this action expired on December 9, 1949. Since the petition in error with case-made attached was not filed in this court until the 24th day of April, 1950, this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and the appeal is dismissed.

ARNOLD, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, HALLEY, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6876

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY L. MCFARLANE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-97-290, CA-00-533-1-3)

Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 7, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy L. McFarlane, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 Claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be

considered absent exceptional circumstances such as plain error or

a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d

246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We find no such circumstances present

here.

2

PER CURIAM:

Troy McFarlane seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. McFarlane, Nos. CR-97-290;

CA-00-533-1-3 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 30, 2002; entered May 2, 2002).*

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