alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 14, 2022

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance). 

 

                                                Notethat workplace policies instituted to address the COVID-19 pandemic mayrestrict the ability of some participants to take part in the argumentin-person. Those participants will join the argument through a videoconferenceinvolving all other participants who are appearing in-person. 

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                      TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Peabody Midwest Mining, LLCand Butler employed by Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC,*Docket Nos. LAKE2019-0023, 2019-0122, 2019-0361. (Issues include whether the Judge erred inconcluding that the operator violated standards when it failed to immediatelyde-energize equipment and stop work when it encountered high methane levels,whether the violations were significant and substantial, and whether asupervisor was liable for individual penalties.)

 

                                                Pursuantto the Commission’s COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan, in-person attendance shallbe limited to persons participating in the oral argument process (e.g., Chairand Commissioners, parties and their representatives, Commission employeesproviding support for the meeting). Non-participating individuals may listen tothe meeting by calling the phone number listed below in this notice.

 

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.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)236-7472

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

 

Dated: July 1, 2022

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel

 

 

BillingCode 6735-01
#### Richard PEAMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Bill Norris; Michael Rich, Plaintiffs, v. A AND R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-1242.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

Richard Peamon, Appellant Pro Se. Paula Jeanette McGill, Washington, D.C.; Paul D. Shelton, McKennon, Shelton, & Henn, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Peamon appeals the district court’s orders granting A *&*R Development’s motions to set aside an entry of default, for a protective order, and for summary judgment on Peamon’s civil negligence action, which alleged inadequate security at his apartment complex. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Peamon v. A & R Dev. Corp.,*No. 1:06-cv02974-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2007; Apr. 19, 2007; Feb. 7, 2008). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 
10-K) of Silicon Graphics, Inc. of our report dated July 21, 1998 included in 
the 1998 Annual Report to Stockholders of Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of 
Silicon Graphics, Inc. listed in item 14(a)2.  This schedule is the 
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express 
an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement 
schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic 
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material 
respects the  information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements (Form S -8 File Nos. 33-11703, 33-16529, 33-18717, 33-26003, 
33-34919, 33-38536, 33-40879, 33-44305, 33-44333, 33-48890, 33-59098, 
33-65190, 33-50999, 33-51275, 33-58017, 33-60213, 33-60215, 333-01211, 
333-06403, 333-08651, 333-15977 and 333-40849) pertaining to the Employee 
Stock Purchase Plan, 1987 Stock Option Plan, 1986 Incentive Stock Option 
Plan, 1985 Stock Incentive Program, 1984 Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1982 
Stock Option Plan, Directors' Stock Option Plan and Subsidiary Stock 
Agreement, 1993 Long-Term Incentive Stock Plan and the 1996 Supplemental 
Non-Executive Equity Incentive Plan of Silicon Graphics, Inc.; the 1990 Stock 
Option Plan of Wavefront Technologies, Inc.; and the 1988 Employee Share 
Ownership Plan, 1989 Employee Share Ownership Plan, 1990 Employee Share 
Ownership Plan, and the 1994 Stock Plan of Alias Research Inc. and the 
Amended and Restated 1989 Employee Benefit Stock Plan, and 1989 Non-Employee 
Directors' Stock Option Plan of Cray Research, Inc. of our report dated July 
21, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Silicon 
Graphics, Inc. incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in 
the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule 
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
September 28, 1998
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 332 

To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to encourage 

a victim-centered approach to combating human trafficking, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2021 

Mr. KINZINGER (for himself and Ms. KELLY of Illinois) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 

to encourage a victim-centered approach to combating 

human trafficking, 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 ‘‘Reducing the Demand 

5 for Human Trafficking Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 332 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTING A VICTIM-CENTERED APPROACH 

2 TO COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING. 

3 Section 107(b)(2) of the Trafficking Victims Protec4 tion Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(2)) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) PREFERENCES.—The Attorney Gen7 eral shall provide affirmative preferences to ap8 plicants for grant funding under this paragraph 

9 whose grant application includes an attestation 

10 that grant funds awarded to a State or local 

11 law enforcement agency will be used in part to 

12 assist in strengthening efforts to reduce de13 mand for human trafficking through the inves14 tigation and prosecution of persons who solicit 

15 or purchase commercial sex.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 
-                   FOIA LOG FY 2023              

#   FOIA LOG FY 2023

Download Here

##### 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
# WORK ZONE SAFETY NWZAW sample Press release 

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: [Date]**

**CONTACT: [Name, Phone Number, E-Mail]**

**[Organization] Supports the U.S. Department of Transportation’s New Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign**

*Annual National Work Zone Awareness Week is April 26-30*

**[City, State]** – **[Organization]** announced today it is joining efforts to help reduce large truck crashes in works zones by supporting a new work zone safety outreach campaign led by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). As the annual National Work Zone Awareness Week (NWZAW) kicks off the roadway repair and construction season, **[Organization]** calls on all drivers to “share work zones safely” by staying alert, obeying traffic signs and allowing all vehicles extra space while driving through active work zones this summer.

 “We are pleased to support an effort that reminds both passenger and Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) drivers on our roadways to slow down and pay attention when driving through work zones,” said **[spokesperson].** “Nationally, in 2019, over 33 precent of fatal crashes involved CMVs, and compared to the year before, the U.S. saw a 16 percent increase in the number of fatal work zone crashes involving large trucks or buses[footnoteRef:1]. So we need everyone to do their part to share the road safely, and help us reduce crashes in work zones.”  [1:  FARS 2019 Annual Report File, NHTSA. ] 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reports that in 2019, the most recent year for which data are available, 842 people died in highway work zone crashes compared to 757 the year before[footnoteRef:2]. The 11.2-percent increase is the largest percentage increase of highway work zone fatalities this century. Rear-end collisions and speeding, both preventable factors – also saw a 29 percent and 40 percent increase from 2018 to 2019, respectively[footnoteRef:3]. Additionally, the number of worker fatalities in road construction sites increased by nearly 9 percent between 2018 and 2019[footnoteRef:4].  [2:  FARS 2018 Final File and 2019 Annual Report File, NHTSA.]  [3:  FARS 2018 Final File and 2019 Annual Report File, NHTSA. ]  [4:  2018 and 2019 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with States, New York City, the District of Columbia, and Federal agencies] 

These are just a handful of statistics showing the importance of communicating work zone safety, for the collective effort to reduce work zone crashes and save lives. 

For more information on work zone safety, visit the campaign website.

**###**

[INSERT BOILERPLATE]

# image1.png
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00665-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF REYNOL RAMOS, JR.

From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-PC-0109

Honorable John D. Hutchinson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 21, 2009

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief, which was due on December 5, 2008, has not been filed. On December

10, 2008, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by December 29, 2008, why this

appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant did not respond. The appeal is

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
2014-0411.

#### State v. Ellis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 99830, 2014-Ohio-116. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal. The records of this court indicate that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due June 13, 2014, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that this cause is dismissed.
Fostering Collaborative Approaches to Bargaining

Affinity Economic Bargaining

Does your organization seek to bargain economics in a way that cultivates a 

consensus-building, collaborative relationship?

The mission of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is to assist and train 

labor and management partners in building stronger working relationships. Put our more 

than 70 years of experience to work for you, with the implementation of FMCS mediation 

and relationship development training programs focused on achieving results in today’s 

workplaces with new approaches to cooperatively addressing mutual problems. 

What Is the Affinity Method of Collaborative Economic Bargaining?

The Affinity Method of Collaborative Bargaining is a method developed by the mediators 

in the Chicago field office of FMCS to address a growing desire by the parties to bargain 

economics in a way that fosters a collaborative relationship. The method incorporates the 

“Zone of Possible Agreement” (ZOPA) concept into a collaborative, interest-based negotiation process. It has been used repeatedly in both public-sector and private-sector 

negotiations with greater than 98 percent success rate to date. The Affinity Bargaining 

Method has expanded beyond economics and has been successfully applied to the 

entire negotiations process.

How Does It Work?

The Affinity Method leads participants through the 

steps necessary to identify economic bargaining 

settlement options and mutually-acceptable solutions, and to assemble a full economic agreement. 

Affinity training should be implemented as parties 

are getting close to resolving their non-economic 

issues. Affinity preparation should include: 

Training and Preparation 

 Introduction to Affinity Approach to Economic Bargaining Process

 Identification of parties’ economic issues

 Sharing of relevant “stories” and/or interests

 Identification and sharing of relevant economic information

For More Information

Please contact the FMCS Office of Client Services at 202-606-5499. 

FMCS | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov

Last updated 2023
##### 



Exhibit 10.32
  
 Separation Agreement and General Release
     
               -2-




---



##### 




    
    You have no accrued but unused vacation days.
    
    Your group medical and dental benefits will remain in effect until December 31,
2005. Upon the termination of your group medical and dental benefits, you will be
provided separate information regarding your right thereafter to continue group
coverage as required by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA).
    
    Your group life insurance will remain in effect until December 31, 2005, which
is the last day of your employment. Upon the termination of your group life
insurance, you will be provided separate information regarding your right to
convert your group life insurance to an individual policy.
    
    You will be provided a separate statement of your benefits, if any, under any
AMI savings and/or pension plan. Your rights to benefits under any AMI savings
and/or pension plan will be determined by law and in accordance with the terms of
the specific plan.
    -3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    
 Kenneth L. BloomSTATE OF OHIO
    
    
    )ss.:COUNTY OF
    
    
    )
 
 Notary Public
 YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE (INCLUDING THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
PAGE).
 -5-




---



##### 



Separation Agreement and General Release
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Taylor, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Taylor,*118 Ohio St.3d 268, 2008-Ohio-2547.]

(No. 2008-0184

Submitted April 23, 2008

Decided June 4, 2008.)

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and James Michael Keeling, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

{¶ 1} On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists.

{¶ 2} 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.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
#### Jodie RIGGS, doing business as The Silver Saddle, Appellant, v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 09-3768.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 10, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 14, 2010.

*88Jodie Riggs, Doing Business as the Silver Saddle, Harrison, AR, pro se.

Michael J. Emerson, Barber & McCaskill, Little Rock, AR, Theodore Nicholas Goanos, David E. Heiss, Peter E. Kanaris, Fisher & Kanaris, Chicago, IL, for Appellee.

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jodie Riggs, doing business as The Silver Saddle, appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to Valley Forge Insurance Company in this diversity action. Valley Forge was the insurer of Riggs’s business property when the business was destroyed by a fire in December 2004. In her breach-of-contract claim, Riggs alleged that Valley Forge paid her a portion of the covered loss due under the policy but wrongfully refused to pay the full amount due. In her bad-faith claims, Riggs alleged, inter alia, that Valley Forge initially indicated that the losses caused by the fire would reach or exceed policy limits and suggested that the fire was caused by arson. After de novo review, applying Arkansas law, we affirm for the reasons that follow. *See Paine v. Jefferson Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,*594 F.3d 989, 991-92 (8th Cir.2010) (setting out the standard of review and noting that in a diversity action, state law governs issues of substantive law),

We may affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on any ground supported by the record. *Bluehaven Funding, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.,*594 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir.2010). We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on Riggs’s breach-of-contract claim based on the evidence in the record, including undisputed evidence that Riggs submitted invoices to Valley Forge for work performed at her mother’s residence, which was not covered by the policy. *See Brattmer v. Allstate Indem. Co.,*591 F.3d 984, 989 (8th Cir.2010) (“Under Arkansas law, the language of the insurance contract governs whether an insurer may withhold coverage on the basis of the insured’s allegedly false statements.”). We further conclude that Riggs’s allegations in support of her bad-faith claims were insufficient to establish that Valley Forge waived any policy provisions or engaged in either statutory or common-law bad faith. *See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Andrews,*363 Ark. 67, 210 S.W.3d 896, 902 (2005) (“The purpose of [Ark. Code Ann. § ] 23-79-208 is to punish the unwarranted delaying tactics of insurance companies.”); *S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Allen,*326 Ark. 1023, 934 S.W.2d 527, 529 (1996) (“The components of the tort of bad faith are affirmative misconduct by an insurer, without a good-faith defense, which is dishonest, malicious, or oppressive in an attempt to avoid liability under a policy.” (citations to quoted cases omitted)).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67252-67253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31953]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can 
review or obtain copies of agreements at the

[[Page 67253]]

Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Room 940. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 011528-020.
    Title: Japan-United States Eastbound Freight Conference.

    Parties:
    American President Lines, Ltd.
    Hapag-Lloyd Container Line GmbH
    Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.
    Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.
    A. P. Moller-Maersk Sealand
    Nippon Yusen Kaisha
    Orient Overseas Container Line Limited
    P & O Nedlloyd B.V.
    P & O Nedlloyd Limited
    Wallenius Wilhelmsen Lines A.S.

    Synopsis: The proposed agreement modification extends the 
suspension of the conference for another six-month period, until July 
31, 2002.

    Agreement No.: 011784.
    Title: Indamex/TSA Bridging Agreement.
    Parties: The Indamex Agreement, and The Transpacific Stabilization 
Agreement.
    Synopsis: The proposed agreement authorizes the parties and their 
member lines to exchange information and to discuss and reach non-
binding agreement on various matters including rates, charges, rules, 
and equipment in the trade from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri 
Lanka to the United States East Coast. The agreement does not authorize 
common tariffs or service contracts, but does authorize the parties to 
discuss and agree on voluntary guidelines related to service contracts.

    Agreement No.: 200233-011.
    Title: Packer Avenue Lease and Operating Agreement.
    Parties: Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, and Astro Holdings, 
Inc.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment extends the agreement through June 
1, 2002.

    Dated: December 21, 2001.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31953 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P