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 
-  Node 
-                   2019 Annual FOIA Report              

#   2019 Annual FOIA Report

FMSHRC FY19 FINAL (HRV) (3).pdf

FMSHRC FY19 FINAL.XML

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Exhibit 23





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation by reference of our reports dated April 4, 2003
(August  18,  2003 as to Note 18) (which  express  an  unqualified  opinion  and
include an explanatory paragraph relating to the revision described in Note 18),
appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K/A of  Find/SVP,  Inc. for the year
ended  December 31, 2002, in  Registration  Statement No.  333-22445 on Form S-8
(pertaining to the Find/SVP,  Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan);  and  Post-Effective
Amendment  No.  1 to the  Registration  Statement  on  Form  S-8  No.  333-68315
(pertaining to the Find/SVP, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan).

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-43940 (pertaining to the Find/SVP, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan) of Find/SVP,
Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports  dated April 4, 2003 (August 18, 2003 as to Note
18) (which express an unqualified  opinion and include an explanatory  paragraph
relating to the revision  described in Note 18), that have been  incorporated by
reference from  Registration  Statement No. 333-22445 on Form S-8 (pertaining to
the Find/SVP,  Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan), and that originally  appear in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Find/SVP,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31,
2002.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
August 18, 2003
----

Exhibit 99.17

Consent of AMC Consultants (Pty.) Ltd.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securitiesand Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with mineralreserve estimates for the New Afton Project and to the use of informationderived from the technical report entitled "New Afton Project NI 43-101Independent Technical Report" dated April 2007 and revised on June 22, 2007,included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial yearended December 31, 2008. 

Dated this thirty first day of March, 2009. 

AMC CONSULTANTS (PTY.) LTD.

"*Mike Thomas"                                          *Name: Mike Thomas Title: Director/Principal Mining Consultant 

----
#### In the Matter of: TRINITY MEADOWS RACEWAY INC., Debtor. Trinity Meadows Raceway Inc., Appellant v. Texas Racing Commission of the State of Texas; R. Dyke Rogers, In Capacity as former and acting chair of the Texas Racing Commission of the State of Texas, Appellees.

No. 08-10286.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2009.

David R. Langston, Lawrence Matthew Doss, Mullin, Hoard & Brown, Lubbock, TX, for Appellant.

Edith Stuart Phillips, Office of the Attorney General, Bankruptcy *&*Collections Div., Austin, TX, for Appellees.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After having reviewed the briefs and the record, we AFFIRM for essentially the reasons given by the learned bankruptcy judge in his Memorandum Opinion entered on September 12, 2007, 2007 WL 2713920.

*

 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 Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No s . 07 - 15 - 00322 - CR 07 - 15 - 00323 - CR MALCO M BROWN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No s . 69690 - D & 70702 - D , Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding



### September 30 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Malcom Brown, appeals his conviction s for burglary of a habitation and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon . The certification s of defendant’s right to appeal ex ecuted by the trial court state that these are plea - bargain case s and “ defendant has NO right of appeal .” This circumstance was brought to the attention of appellant , and opportunity was granted h im to obtain amended ce rtification s entitling him t o appeal . No such certification s were received within the time we allotted. Having2

received no amended certification s , we dismiss both appeal s per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d). Per Curiam Do not publish.
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. Eastern Associated Coal Corporation Docket No. No.WEVA 2007-335.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Eastern Associated Coal Corporation Docket No. No.WEVA 2007-335.

meeting_040710.pdf

meeting040710.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
'use strict';

(function ($, Drupal, once) {
  Drupal.behaviors.mediaelement = {
    attach: function attach(context, settings) {
      $(once('mediaelement', '.mediaelementjs', context)).each(function () {
        $(this).mediaelementplayer(settings.mediaelement);
      });

      // Attach player to other elements if MediaElement.js is set to global.
      if (settings.mediaelement.attachSitewide !== undefined) {
        $(once('mediaelement', 'audio,video', context)).each(function () {
          $(this).mediaelementplayer(settings.mediaelement);
        });
      }
    }
  };
})(jQuery, Drupal, once);
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 335 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.335

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-one

                                 An Act

 
   To provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of 
persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active 
       duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS AS 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS 
REGULAR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of section 
113(a) of title 10, United States Code, the first person appointed, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as Secretary of Defense 
in an appointment made on or after January 20, 2021, may be a person 
who is, on the date of appointment, within seven years after relief, 
but not within four years after relief, from active duty as a 
commissioned officer of a regular component of the Armed Forces.
    (b) Limited Exception.--This section applies only to the first 
person nominated after 12 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on January 20, 
2021, and appointed as Secretary of Defense as described in subsection 
(a), and to no other person.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2015

No. 04-12-00602-CR

Michael Jason TUCKER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-03-0067-CRA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting:1 Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion 

is DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 Retired Chief Justice Catherine Stone not participating.
#### Edward G. ONTIVEROS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.J. SUBIA; Attorney General of the State of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr,, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 09-15660.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

Edward G. Ontiveros, lone, CA, pro se.

David N. Sunada, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*143MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Edward G. Ontiveros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § *2253**1**,*and we affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Ontiveros’ habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The district court correctly concluded that Ontiveros could not proceed under § 2254 because he received only a “counseling chrono” and did not lose any sentencing credit as a result of the disciplinary decision. See *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”)

Ontiveros’ Rule 60(b) motion, filed on October 7, 2010, is construed in part as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel, and in part as a request for judicial notice. The request for judicial notice is granted. The requests for oral argument and appointment of counsel are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed Ontiveros' petition for lack of jurisdiction.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Hudson Holding Corporation, (the "Company")
      on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin C.
      Cunningham, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





Date:
                June 26, 2008
            
            /s/
                Martin C. CunninghamMartin
                C. CunninghamChairman
                of the Boardand
                Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)
-  Home 
-  Mission 
-  Information Systems 
-  PRISM 

# In This Section

                      -  About PRISM 
                      -  States Participating in PRISM 
                      -  PRISM Requirements 
                      -  Document Library 
                      -  Grant Opportunities 
                      -  Contacts 

## Contact PRISM

Camille WhiteTransportation SpecialistEnforcement Division
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**Camille.White@dot.gov**Phone:**202-493-0442****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# States Participating in PRISM

PRISM-Summary- Map-January 2022_508.pdf (105.85 KB)

## PRISM State Implementation Map

### January, 2022

###
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3528 

To authorize appropriations for highway-rail grade crossing improvement 

projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2021 

Mr. NEAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for highway-rail grade crossing 

improvement projects. 

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 ‘‘Warren Cowles Grade 

5 Crossing Safety Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIGH7 WAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENT 

8 PROJECTS. 

9 Section 22907 of title 49, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3528 IH

1 (1) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ‘‘, includ2 ing such a project for commuter rail and operators 

3 in high-ridership corridors’’ before the period at the 

4 end; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

8 22905(f), there are authorized to be appropriated 

9 for eligible projects described in subsection (c)(5) for 

10 commuter rail and operators in high-ridership cor11 ridors— 

12 ‘‘(A) for fiscal year 2022, $250,000,000; 

13 and 

14 ‘‘(B) for fiscal year 2023 and each fiscal 

15 year thereafter, the amount described in para16 graph (2). 

17 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT DESCRIBED.—The amount de18 scribed in this paragraph for a fiscal year is 

19 $250,000,000, adjusted to reflect the percentage (if 

20 any) of the increase in the average of the Consumer 

21 Price Index for the preceding 12-month period com22 pared to the Consumer Price Index for fiscal year 

23 2021. 

24 ‘‘(3) CONSUMER PRICE INDEX DEFINED.—In 

25 this subsection, the term ‘Consumer Price Index’ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3528 IH

1 means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Con2 sumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

3 of the Department of Labor.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Leon J. WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7068.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2015.

Decided: Feb. 1, 2016.

Leon J. White, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leon J. White 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 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10.149

CONFIDENTIAL

Separation and Release Agreement

Dated this 19th day of December, 2007



|             |  |                                        |  |                                           
|------------ |  | -------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Between:     |  |                                        |  | Yaron Tchwella (Israel ID Number 56470685)
|             |  |                                        |  | 3 SNIR ST (address)                       
|             |  |                                        |  | HOD HASHARON ISRAEL                       
|             |  |                                        |  | (the Employee)                          
|             | 
|and between: |  | Comverse Ltd.                         
|             |  | 29 Habarzel Street                    
|             |  | Ramat Hachayal, Tel-Aviv, Israel 69710
|             |  | (the Company)                       

Whereas, the Company has unilaterally notified Employee of the termination of his employment with the Company, without cause, and the Company has
terminated the Employees services as President; and

Whereas, the parties have reached an agreement to terminate such employment
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the separation agreement between Comverse, Inc. and Employee dated     .th of December 2007 (the Agreement).

Now, therefore, the parties hereto hereby agree that each party is bound to all of the terms specified in the Agreement.

In Witness whereof, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.



|                   |  |  |  |                           
|------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------
|/s/ Yaron Tchwella |  |  |  | /s/ Lance Miyamoto        
|Employee           |  |  |  | Comverse Ltd.             
|                   |  |  |  | By: Dec. 19, 2007         
|                   |  |  |  | Title: EVP HUMAN RESOURCES