alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Foster, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Foster,*118 Ohio St.3d 265, 2008-Ohio-2542.]

(No. 2007-1585

Submitted April 23, 2008

Decided June 4, 2008.)

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tanner B. McFall, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The certified question is answered in the affirmative and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Cabrales,*118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-1625, 886 N.E.2d 181, but the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with *State v. Cabrales,*including a determination as to whether the trafficking and possession offenses were committed with a separate animus under R.C. 2941.25(B).

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             323,886
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,355,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,310,949
<PP&E>                                           1,598,280
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,205,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,121,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              874,973
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             6,772
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,080,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,121,220
<SALES>                                         11,218,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,231,561
<CGS>                                            8,935,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,432,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (236,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (76,622)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (159,674)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (159,674)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.26)
        





</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
INTERLINQ Software Corporation:

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 33-63388, 333-04558 and 333-21099) on Form S-8 of INTERLINQ
Software Corporation of our report dated August 9, 2002, relating to the balance
sheets of INTERLINQ Software Corporation as of June 30, 2002 and 2001, and the
related statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2002, and the related
schedule, which report appears in the June 30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K
of INTERLINQ Software Corporation.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
September 26, 2002
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. Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC and Secretary of Labor  v. Michael Butler, employed by Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor  v. Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC and Secretary of Labor  v. Michael Butler, employed by Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC

Peabody Midwest LAKE 2019-0023 Meeting Notice 7-15-22.pdf

Peabody Midwest, LAKE 2019-0023, Meeting Notice 7-15-22.htm

commission-open-meetingpeabody-midwest-mining-llc-and-butler-docket-nos-lake-2019-0023-2019-0122.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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

p0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144359

E.T. MACKENZIE COMPANY,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144359

COA: 297864

Lenawee CC: 08

- 002968

- CK

SUTTON PLACE

- RAISIN TWP., L.L.C.,

Defendant,

and

UNITED BANK & TRUST,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2011

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 - Northshore Mining Company              

#   Direction for Review - Northshore Mining Company

On March 25, 2019, the Commission issued a Direction for Review for Northshore Mining Co., Docket Nos. LAKE 2017-224 et al.  Northshore's Petition for Review was granted, except as to the issue of whether the Judge erred in finding a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.11002 and 30 C.F.R. § 56.20011.  The Secretary of Labor's Petition for Review was also granted.  

DFR(Northshore Mining Co. et al.)LAKE 2017-2242482018-141145.pdf

PDR(Northshore Mining Co.)LAKE 2017-224 et al..pdf

Sec'y PDR(Northshore Mining Company)LAKE 2017-0224 0248.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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Promoting labor-management cooperation at the Georgia Labor-Management Conference - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7IzbKGEBUp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/promoting-labor-management-cooperation-oklahoma-state-labor-management-conference\/\">Promoting labor-management cooperation at the Georgia Labor-Management Conference<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/promoting-labor-management-cooperation-oklahoma-state-labor-management-conference\/embed\/#?secret=7IzbKGEBUp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Promoting labor-management cooperation at the Georgia Labor-Management Conference” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"7IzbKGEBUp\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Georgia Labor Management Conference brings together unionized workers and their employers, along with lawyers, educators, government agencies and others whose work supports labor management relations. For more conference information, click here. FMCS provides services and programs that enable labor and management to better work together in joint problem solving and resolve differences at the […]"}
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65943-65944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31446]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP02-56-001]


Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 17, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 7, 2001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. 
(DTI) tendered for filing with the Commission an errata to its November 
27, 2001 filing in Docket No. RP02-56-000 (November 27th Filing). The 
November 27th Filing adopted the Gas Research Institute surcharges 
previously approved by the Commission on September 19, 2001, in Docket 
No. RP01-434-000.
    DTI states that the purpose of the filing is to correct a 
transposed number on one of the tariff sheets, affecting the 
reservation rate and the rate for capacity release. The revised tariff 
sheet, Substitute Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 32, corrects that error.

[[Page 65944]]

    DTI states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures 
have been served upon DTI's customers, interested state commissions and 
on all persons on the official service list compiled by the Secretary 
of the Commission for this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions 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 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31446 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6052
LARRY CROSLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versusWILLIAM R. DAVIS, Warden; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-886-17BD) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Crosland, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition for habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed therecord and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crosland v. Davis , No. CA-95-886-17BD (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 1995). 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
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-173-001]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 1, 2001.
    Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Questar Pipeline Company 
(Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
December 22, 2000:

Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 52
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 56
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 56A

    Questar stated that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's January 4 order, wherein the Commission approved and 
rejected certain tariff sheets and requested clarification of approved 
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 56 and First Revised Sheet No. 56A. Therefore, 
these sheets have been modified to include proposed language in order 
to clarify its intent.
    Questar states that in addition, Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 
52 is being submitted to be consistent with what Questar believes the 
Commission intended to approve in its January 4 order. The tariff sheet 
is now consistent with what the Commission approved on Sheet No. 52A, 
which allows for a bid period with two rounds of competing bids instead 
of three.
    Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its 
customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service 
Commission of Wyoming.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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 instruction on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3149 Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### TRAILMOBILE, Inc., Appellant, v. Walter G. WISEMAN, Trustee, Appellee.

No. 13031.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 22, 1957.

*77Frazer & Popkin, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Kenney, Radom, Rockwell & Mountain, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court affirming a referee’s ruling that appellant’s lien on certain tank trucks was invalid as against the trustee in bankruptcy.

The court correctly held that the referee had summary jurisdiction by virtue of the actual possession of the tank trucks by the bankruptcy receiver at the time of the proceedings. Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 1940, 309 U.S. 478, 481, 60 S.Ct. 628, 84 L.Ed. 876; In re Prokop, 7 Cir., 1933, 65 F.2d 628.

 The court was also correct in concluding that under Michigan law appellant’s security interest was not a conditional sale contract, but a chattel mortgage, which was invalid against the trustee in bankruptcy because an intervening creditor had extended credit to the bankrupt after the instrument was executed and before it was recorded. Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Wieselberg, 1925, 230 Mich. 15, 203 N.W. 160; Deane v. Fidelity Corp. of Michigan, D.C.W.D.Mich.1949, 82 F.Supp. 710; Moore v. Bay, 1931, 284 U.S. 4, 52 S.Ct. 3, 76 L.Ed. 133.

The statute upon which appellant relies, Mich.Stat.Ann. § 26.929, Comp.Laws 1948, § 566.140 (as amended August 11, 1956, Pub.Laws 1956, No. 153), enacted long after the transaction in issue, is inapplicable to this case.

The judgment is affirmed upon the findings and conclusions of Judge Picard.