alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Antonio COLBERT, Appellant v. CATHOLIC CHARITIES, James Cardinal Hickey Center, Appellee.

No. 10-7120.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 3, 2011.

Antonio Colbert, Washington, DC, pro se.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*510
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered August 23, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district courts of the United States are “courts of limited jurisdiction ... possessing] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” *Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,*511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district courts also have jurisdiction in “diversity” cases, when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the lawsuit is between citizens of different U.S. states or between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens or foreign states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                             228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    33286
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1224
<INVENTORY>                                      46858
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 87826
<PP&E>                                           56558
<DEPRECIATION>                                   23098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  163568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29613
<BONDS>                                          81297
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       49422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    163568
<SALES>                                         194206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                194206
<CGS>                                           116236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   116236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (687)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14915)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (14915)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (14915)
        

</TABLE>
****Exhibit 32.2 - Officer Certification****
**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 Annual Report of Health Outcomes Management, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of, each of the undersigned officers of Health Outcomes Management, Inc. certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

   (1) The Form 10-KSB 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Health Outcomes Management, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Form 10-KSB.

Date:  May 28, 2004

   /s/ B. Marie Cooper   B. Marie CooperActing Principal Accounting Officer and Controller

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Secion 906, has been provided to Health Outcomes Management, Inc. and will be retained by Health Outcomes Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0139]


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 
(44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Veterans 
Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has 
submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA 
submission describes the nature of the information collection and its 
expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection 
instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 28, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION CONTACT: Denise 
McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030, 
FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f89c9d96918b9dd6959b9499959ab895999194d68e99d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c383932352f3972313f303d313e1c313d3530722a3d723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>. Please refer 
to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0139.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Notice--Payment not Applied 
(Government Life Insurance), VA Form 29-4499A.
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0139.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: This notice solicits comments for information needed to 
determine eligibility to reinstate government life insurance.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 
60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of 
information was published on October 3, 2001, at page 50502.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 300 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.
    Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the 
information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources 
and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316. Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 
2900-0139'' in any correspondence.


    Dated: December 13, 2001.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
 Director, Information Management Service.
[FR Doc. 01-31827 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Talikka.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Talikka,*139 Ohio St.3d 1262, 2014-Ohio-3026.]

(No. 2012-1324

Submitted July 8, 2014

Decided July 10, 2014.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Leo Johnny Talikka, Attorney Registration No. 0006613, last known business address in Painesville, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court, coming now to consider its order of March 20, 2013, wherein the court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3) suspended respondent for a period of two years with the second year stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent shall serve one year of probation to be supervised by a monitor appointed by relator in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), relator shall file with the clerk of this court, on or before 30 days from the date of this order, the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor. It is further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period, respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance *1263with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
*Order Entered June 21, 2012:*

#### Howard v Kowalski,

Docket No. 297066.

Reported at 296 Mich App 664.

The Court orders that the May 29, 2012, published opinion per curiam in this case is amended in two respects.

First, the opening sentence of the first paragraph on page 6 ** is amended to read:

Following the trial court’s advice, and as he did in his opening statement, plaintiffs counsel argued that the defense in this case was fabricated, that the Dr. Urse’s affidavit indicated that there was no meeting between Dr. Urse and Dr. Kowalski, and that Dr. Urse did not come to Mrs. Johnson’s room between 2:53 and 3:00 p.m. as the two doctors testified.”

Second, footnote 2 is added to the fourth sentence of the final paragraph on page 6 * * so that the sentence and footnote shall read:

Because they are inconsistent, plaintiff argues, the trial court should have admitted them for impeachment purposes.2

2

 We note that MRE 411 plays no role in this decision. MRE 411 does not preclude evidence of liability insurance if introduced for relevant reasons other than proving that a person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Dr. Urse is not a party to this action. The communications between plaintiffs counsel and the claims representative for Dr. Urse’s insurer are admissible because they hear on Dr. Urse’s credibilify as a witness, not on his conduct on the day in question.

In all other respects, the May 29, 2012, opinion remains unchanged.

**

 References to slip opinion. See 296 Mich App 664, 675-676—Reporter.
<PAGE>

                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Right Management Consultants, Inc.:

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
     of our report included in this Form 10-K into the Company's previously
     filed Registration Statements No. 333-06211, File No. 333-07975, File No.
     33-58698, File No. 33-62997, and File No. 33-62999.

                                                     /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
         March 30, 1999
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 
-                   Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2018              

#   Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2018

##           Downloads        

PAR2018.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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dajuan Anthony HARRIS, also known as Kendricke Harris, also known as Dejuan Harris, Appellant.

No. 10-1976.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 23, 2010.

Filed: Jan. 3, 2011.

Scott A. Hamblin, Brydon, Swearengen & England P.C., Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.

Dajuan Anthony Harris, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Anthony P. Gonzalez, Lawrence E. Miller, Asst. U.S. Attys., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.

*87Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Dajuan Harris pled guilty to using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a drug-trafficking conspiracy, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced Harris to concurrent prison terms of 48 and 110 months and concurrent supervised release terms of 1 and 3 years. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that the court miscalculated the drug quantity and imposed an unreasonable sentence. Harris has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that counsel was ineffective.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because the record shows that Harris entered into both the plea agreement and the waiver knowingly and voluntarily; further, this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. *See United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); *United States v. Estrada-Bahena,*201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in *Anders*case). We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. *See United States v. Cain,*134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998) (ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and allow counsel to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Antonio COLBERT, Appellant v. SAFEWAY, Appellee.

No. 10-7151.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 3, 2011.

*512Antonio Colbert, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered November 1, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district courts of the United States are “courts of limited jurisdiction ... possessing] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” *Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,*511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district courts also have jurisdiction in “diversity” cases, when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 *and*the lawsuit is between citizens of different U.S. states or between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens or foreign states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31327]



[[Page 66296]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NE-38-AD; Amendment 39-12529; AD 2001-24-12]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives: Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly 
Allison Engine Company) 250-C20 Series Turboshaft and 250-B17 Series 
Turboprop Engines, Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive 
(AD) 2001-24-12 applicable to Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison 
Engine Company) 250-C20 series turboshaft and 250-B17 series turboprop 
engines, that was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2001 
(66 FR 62915). The AD number being superseded was inadvertently omitted 
under the PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES amendatory instruction 2 in 
the heading of the AD. This document corrects that omission. In all 
other respects, the original document remains the same.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, 
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 294-
8180, fax (847) 294-7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule; request for comments 
airworthiness directive applicable to Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly 
Allison Engine Company) 250-C20 series turboshaft and 250-B17 series 
turboprop engines was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 
2001 (66 FR 62915). The following correction is needed:


Sec. 39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 62916, in the first column, under PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS 
DIRECTIVES, amendatory instruction 2, the heading of the AD is 
corrected to read as follows:

2001-24-12  Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engine 
Company): Amendment 39-12529. Docket No. 2001-NE-38-AD. Supersedes 
AD 2001-20-51.


    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 14, 2001.
Francis A. Favara,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 01-31327 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U