alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aubrey WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10408

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern Distriet of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Aubrey Walker, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Aubrey Walker, federal prisoner # 35881-177, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. She was sentenced to 151 months in prison. Walker now appeals the denial of her motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). She avers that she was eligible for a reduction in her sentence following *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Walker’s untimely notice of appeal may be deemed a request for an extension of time within which to file her notice of appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *see also United States v. Golding,*739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1984). Although the district court did not expressly make a finding of good cause or excusable neglect, the district court did grant Walker’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which served as an implicit finding of excusable neglect. *See, e.g., United States v. Lister,*53 F.3d 66, 68 (5th Cir.1995). As there is no jurisdictional impediment to reaching the merits of Walker’s appeal, *United States v. Martinez,*496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir.2007), we decline *842to dismiss it for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.

*Booker*does not apply to sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2). *Dillon v. United States,*— U.S.-,---, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the motions to dismiss and for an extension of time are DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Docket No. SE 2003-160.               

#   Secretary of Labor v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Docket No. SE 2003-160. 

meeting_060806.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: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
{"id":4031,"date":"2019-06-10T15:02:36","date_gmt":"2019-06-10T19:02:36","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=4031"},"modified":"2019-06-10T15:02:36","modified_gmt":"2019-06-10T19:02:36","slug":"meeting-summary-june-6-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/meeting-summary-june-6-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Meeting of the Federal Maritime Commission \u2013 June 6, 2019"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Statutory Authority: 46 U.S.C. Sec. 303<\/h2>\n<p>The meeting convened at 1:04 p.m. and recessed at 1:52 p.m.<\/p>\n<p>All individuals present at the meeting were Commissioners or Commission employees: <em>Chairman Michael A. Khouri, Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner Louis E. Sola, Commissioner Daniel J. Maffei, John Moran, Robert Blair, Cory Cinque, Brenda Doty, Karen V. Gregory, Tyler J. Wood, Mary Hoang, Rachel Dickon, William Shakely, and William T. Cole.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Summary of matters discussed:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>SES Performance Management System Certification<\/li>\n<li>Senior Leader and Senior Scientific\/Professional Positions (SL\/ST)<\/li>\n<li>OPM Biennial Review of Executive Resources<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Statutory Authority: 46 U.S.C. Sec. 303 The meeting convened at 1:04 p.m. and recessed at 1:52 p.m. All individuals present at the meeting were Commissioners or Commission employees: Chairman Michael A. Khouri, Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner Louis E. Sola, Commissioner Daniel J. Maffei, John Moran, Robert Blair, Cory Cinque,... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/meeting-summary-june-6-2019\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[37],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4031"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4031"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4032,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4031\/revisions\/4032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*June 11, 2014*

[Cite as *06/11/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-2487.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2013-1203.

#### State ex rel. W. Mkt. Plaza Ltd. Partnership v. Summit Cty. Planning Comm.

In Mandamus. Upon consideration of the respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the amended motion for leave to intervene and for judgment on the pleadings of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, it is ordered by the court that the amended motion for leave to intervene and the amended motion for judgment on the pleadings are denied, and respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

O’Donnell, J.,

dissents and would grant an alternative writ and grant the amended motion for leave to intervene of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George J. Taylor, Jr., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
of Farmstead Telephone Group, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.    The accompanying Annual Report of Farmstead Telephone Group, Inc. on
      Form 10-K (the "Report") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: March 25, 2004


/s/ GEORGE J. TAYLOR, JR.
-------------------------
George J. Taylor, Jr.
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President


<PAGE>
Motor Carrier Safety Progress Report

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(as of December 31, 2013) 

MCMIS SAFETY OUTCOMES* Calendar Year 2011 Calendar Year 2012* Calendar Year 2013*

(01/01/2013 – 09/30/2013)

CRASHES

● Large Trucks and Buses 130,657 120,494 98,912

Large Trucks 117,165 115,673 88,718

Buses 13,950 14,301 10,518

FATALITIES

● Large Trucks and Buses 4,239 4,317 3,041

Large Trucks 3,945 4,055 2,832

Buses 317 284 212

INJURIES

● Large Trucks and Buses 79,524 79,385 58,983

Large Trucks 64,362 63,298 47,157

Buses 16,308 17,211 12,355

*States are expected to report crash data to FMCSA within 90 days of the crash. Data are considered preliminary for 18 months to allow for changes.

Note: Individual subtotals may not add to totals due to the potential for double counting (e.g., crashes involving both a truck and bus).

PROGRAM OUTPUTS Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 

(Oct 1 – Dec 31, 2013)

Federal State Federal State Federal State

● Warning Letters 24,126 20,480 5,614

CARRIER INVESTIGATIONS 

● Total Investigations Performed 12,366 7,849 10,721 7,809 2,045 1,841

Hazardous Material (HM) Investigations 909 732 764 676 177 205

Household Goods Investigations 247 1 190 9 43 3

Passenger Carrier Investigations* 1,390 503 2,012 558 221 82

Motor coach Investigations* 913 213 1,613 257 158 20

BY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION

● Total Investigations Performed 12,366 7,849 10,721 7,808 2,405 1,841

On-Site Comprehensive Investigations 3,359 3,515 2,442 3,220 603 859

On-Site Focused Investigations 7,277 3,199 5,892 3,490 1,163 716

Off-Site Investigations 257 348 366 223 41 68

Other** 1,473 787 2,021 875 238 198

INVESTIGATION FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS

● Notice of Claims (NOC) 7,090 6,002 1,215

● Notice of Violations (NOV) 206 115 20

● Unsat/Unfit Out-of-Service (OOS) Orders 855 770 218

● 90-Day No-Pay OOS Orders 1,557 1,678 338

● Imminent Hazard OOS Orders 47 37 9

NEW ENTRANT SAFETY AUDITS

● Total New Entrant Safety Audits

(Percent Completed on Time)

34,370

(86.2%)

32,880 

(89.1%)

6,691 

(91.0%)

● New Entrant Pass Rate 74.2% 80.1% 78.8%

● New Entrant OOS Orders (Refusal of Audit/No Contact,

 Expedited Actions, Failure of Safety Audit) 14,005 14,152 3,888 

ROADSIDE INSPECTIONS

Total Truck and Bus Inspections 3,582,590 3,491,423 827,979

● Trucks 128,582 3,329,378 121,914 3,242,658 29,944 770,858

HM Trucks 4,056 200,123 4,697 196,962 917 45,309

● Buses 11,365 113,265 10,498 116,353 2,728 24,449

Motorcoaches 8,498 27,358 7,852 31,765 2,142 5,294

DRIVER/VEHICLE INSPECTIONS/OOS RATES Driver Vehicle Driver Vehicle Driver Vehicle

● Total Number of Truck Inspections 3,402,828 2,341,009 3,317,648 2,290,586 791,037 535,710

● Total Number of Bus Inspections 61,946 102,077 64,173 101,777 13,983 22,145

● Truck OOS Rate 4.9% 20.8% 4.9% 20.6% 4.8% 20.0%

● Bus OOS Rate 5.2% 6.8% 5.2% 7.2% 4.9% 7.0%

 *Changed to include non-ratable reviews.

**Includes Cargo Tank Facility Reviews, Shipper Reviews, and other non-ratable reviews.

Source: All data from Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), as of February 21, 2014.
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. Mach Mining, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Mach Mining, LLC

Mach LAKE 2014-77 Meeting Notice 2-15-18.pdf

Mach LAKE 2014-77 Meeting Notice 2-15-18.htm

secretary-labor-v-mach-mining-llc-docket-lake2014-77.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
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            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 Quaterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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


Date:  March 17, 2006

                              /s/ Anthony Campo
                              ------------------
                              ANTHONY CAMPO,
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial
                              and Accounting Officer
Exhibit 12

Statement Regarding the Computation of Ratios

a.       The  percentage  ratio  of  net  income  to  average  total  assets  is
         calculated by dividing the 1996 and 1995 net income of  $5,867,000  and
         $6,998,000, respectively, by the average total assets for 1996 and 1995
         of $700,921,000 and $641,519,000, respectively.

b.       The percentage ratio of net income to average  shareholders'  equity is
         calculated by dividing the 1996 and 1995 net income of  $5,867,000  and
         $6,998,000,  respectively, by the average shareholders' equity for 1996
         and 1995 of $65,785,000 and $62,413,000, respectively.

c.       The percentage ratio of average  shareholders'  equity to average total
         assets  is   calculated   by  dividing   the  1996  and  1995   average
         shareholders' equity of $65,785,000 and $62,413,000,  respectively,  by
         the  average  total  assets  for  1996  and  1995 of  $700,921,000  and
         $641,519,000, respectively.

d.       The  percentage  ratio of cash  dividends  declared  to net  income  is
         calculated  by dividing  the 1996 and 1995 cash  dividends  declared of
         $2,925,000 and $2,912,000, respectively, by the net income for 1996 and
         1995 of $5,867,000 and $6,998,000, respectively.
#### Fernando Grady HORTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank BISHOP, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 15-6695.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 21, 2016.

Decided: Feb. 1, 2016.

Fernando Grady Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Grady Horton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon-*190stating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Horton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and' legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Hall C. SMITH, Appellant, v. Thomas A. GALLAGHER, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee.

No. 13030.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 24, 1957.

*64Sol Goodman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Hugh K. Martin, U. S. Atty., Colum-Lus, Ohio, Richard H. Pennington, Asst. 'U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, Charles K. Rice, Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz, Mil■dred L. Seidman, and Melva M. Graney, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case arises out of an action for refund of income tax paid upon $17,000 received in the year 1944 by petitioner as •salary. The case was submitted to the •court upon the pleadings, a written stipulation of agreed facts, and documentary •evidence annexed thereto.

And it appearing that the court made detailed findings of fact in which it concluded that the sum of $17,000 which the corporation paid the plaintiff in 1944 was paid to him as salary, received by him as salary, and treated by him as ¡salary;

And it appearing that petitioner received the said $17,000 under a claim of ■individual right as belonging to him, such payment to be received by him having been without restriction as to its use or disposition, Healy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 345 U.S. 278, 73 S.Ct. 671, 97 L.Ed. 1007;

And it appearing that within the doctrine of Healy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra, said salary of $17,000 was properly taxable as income to petitioner under 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1939) § 22(a);

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed upon the authority of Healy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Guam Industrial Services, Inc. d/b/a Guam Shipyard v. Dresser

- Rand Company

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00842

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 01910

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order denying Guam Industrial

Services Inc. ’ s special appearance. On October 30, 2015, while this appeal was pending, the trial court entered an order gran ting Dresser

- Rand Company’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the trial court. Guam has filed in this Court a motion to vacate, void or stay the October 30 order pending resolution of this appeal. Guam also seeks a stay of the arbitrat ion pending resolution of this appeal

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.5 prohibits a trial court from making an order that “interferes with or impairs the jurisdiction of the appellate court or effectiveness of any relief sought or that may be grant ed on appeal.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 29.5(b). Accordingly, we GRANT

Guam’s motion in part

. The trial court’s order of October 30, 2015 is STAYED pending disposition of this appeal or further order of this Court

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 21, 2016
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

WISNIA ETIENNE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

.

Nos. 4D19

- 333

[ May 30, 2019 ]

A ppeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara McCarthy

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05

- 020906CF10B

.

Wisnia Etienne, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required of appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLOR and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.