alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"Applicants – February 16, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Mz3Cvb3Vho\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-february-16-2017\/\">Applicants – February 16, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-february-16-2017\/embed\/#?secret=Mz3Cvb3Vho\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – February 16, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Mz3Cvb3Vho\" 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"}
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

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

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Direction for Review - KC Transport, Inc.              

#   Direction for Review - KC Transport, Inc.

On April 6, 2020, the Commission granted the petition for review filed by KC Transport, Inc.

DFR(KCTransport Inc)WEVA 2019 0458.pdf

PDR(KC Transport Inc)WEVA 2019-0458.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
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*August 11, 2014*

[Cite as *08/11/2014 Case Announcements #2,*2014-Ohio-3452.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-1319.

#### State ex rel. Beltowski v. Smith.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition.

It is ordered by the court that respondents shall file a response to the complaint and to the motion for an expedited ruling no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2014.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gustavo Alonso GARZA-LOPEZ, also known as Tavo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-40439

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2016.

Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Andrew Kuchera, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Gustavo Aonso Garza-Lopez, Bonham, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gustavo Aonso Garza-Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Garzar-Lopez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur *269with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         246,977
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  47,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               305,624
<PP&E>                                         16,514,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,306,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,357,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          409,327
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,357,832
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               413,954
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,563)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             72,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (92,859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (92,859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
#### Aimellia Kristenson SIEMSON; Johanus Kristanto, a.k.a. Johannes Alexander Siemson, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73113.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Xin Shao, Law Offices of Michelle Shao, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.

Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Nancy Ellen Friedman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Aimellia Kristenson Siemson and Johanus Kristanto, natives and citizens of In*178donesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we review de novo due process claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Johanus Kristanto’s asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); *Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d*646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Petitioners do not contend they suffered past persecution in Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, because, even as a members of a disfavored group, they failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. *Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004); *see Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1066 (9th Cir.2009) (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail”). Accordingly, Aimellia Siemson’s asylum claim fails, and petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, we agree with the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish former counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel also fails. *See Mohammed,*400 F.3d at 793-94 (to demonstrate prejudice, alien must establish that counsel’s performance may have affected outcome of the proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR RUIZ-HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 21-751

Agency No.

A089-837-551

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. 

Salvador Ruiz-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-751

immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th 

Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Ruiz-Hernandez’s claim that the BIA violated due process by affirming 

without opinion the IJ’s decision fails because he has not shown error. See 

Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a 

due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and 

prejudice.”). Ruiz-Hernandez did not argue before the BIA that the IJ violated 

due process by failing to advise him of the availability of voluntary departure, 

and as such, he did not exhaust the contention and we decline to address it. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see 

also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 

1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).

Ruiz-Hernandez’s contention that the hardship to his qualifying relatives 

should have been assessed as of the time of his original hearing lacks merit. See

Mendez-Garcia v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 655, 663-65 (9th Cir. 2016) (applicant for 

cancellation of removal must show hardship to a qualifying relative “as of the 

time the IJ adjudicates the alien’s application”). To the extent Ruiz-Hernandez

contends the IJ violated due process by preventing him from seeking appellate 

review of the original cancellation denial or by unfairly delaying his 

proceedings, we reject these contentions as unsupported by the record. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Donald G. JONES, Appellant v. SUPREME COURT OF the UNITED STATES, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-5222.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 30, 2010.

Donald G. Jones, Fayetteville, GA, pro se.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and TATEL 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 issued June 9, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court, see *In re: Marin,*956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam); federal appellate courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1254; *Sanders v. United States,*184 Fed.Appx. 13, 14 (D.C.Cir.2006) (per curiam); or other district courts, see *Celotex Corp. v. Edwards,*514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995); *Prentice v. U.S. District Court,*307 Fed.Appx. 460 (D.C.Cir.2008) (per curiam). To the extent appellant seeks to recover damages from individual judges or court officers, his claims are barred by absolute immunity. *See Sindram v. Suda,*986 F.2d 1459 (D.C.Cir.1993). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the requests for injunctive relief and transfer to a different district court judge be dismissed as moot.

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 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

October 18, 2016

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 17, 2016

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

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

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Michael K. 

McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc., 2015-279-DM (Issues 

include whether the Judge erred in issuing a summary decision 

concluding that the operator did not interfere with the 

complainant’s statutory rights as a miners’ representative.)

Any person attending this oral argument 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: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
105 A.3d 626

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOEL F. SHAPIRO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 023011988).

January 15, 2015.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-134, concluding that JOEL F. SHAPIRO of BOUND BROOK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in *2171988, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), and *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to communicate with the client);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to submit proof of his fitness to practice law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOEL F. SHAPIRO is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that within sixty days after the filing date of this Order, respondent shall submit to the Office of Attorney Ethic proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000736

25-JUN-2018

01:03 PM
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23(c)


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference (from the 1997 Annual Report
on Form 10-K filed by Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. ("FSA") - in
which filing our report was incorporated by reference from FSA's Annual Report
to Shareholders) in the Registration Statements, as amended, pertaining to
Medium-Term Notes Series B (Form S-3, No. 33-47025), Series A Preferred Stock
(Form S-3, No. 33-71924) and Quarterly Income Capital Securities ("QUICS")
(Form S-4, No. 33-62765) of Source One Mortgage Services Corporation of our
report dated January 26, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1997.



                                                    /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


New York, New York
March 27, 1998
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2014-0365.

#### State ex rel. White v. Internatl. House of Pancakes.

Franklin App. No. 13AP-285, 2014-Ohio-412. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal, it is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         227,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,223,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,010,987
<PP&E>                                       3,077,185
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,122,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,953,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,377,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,591,049
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (4,086,356)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,953,476
<SALES>                                      3,652,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,652,389
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,817,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,099,008
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (423,558)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,851
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (428,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                165,779
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (594,188)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.94)
        

</TABLE>