alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 
-                   FMSHRC Privacy Policy              

#   FMSHRC Privacy Policy

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission will collect no personal information about you when you visit our website unless you choose to provide that information. The only information the Commission automatically collects is the visitor's Internet domain and Internet Protocol address, the type of browser and operating system used to access the site, the file visited and the time spent in each file, and the time and date of the visit.

##### 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
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Year Ended December 31
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           1995          1994          1993
                                           ----          ----          ----
<S>                                        <C>          <C>          <C>       
PRIMARY:
Average shares outstanding                  2,528,121    2,499,204    2,488,139
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
  based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price                   19,666        9,702        7,167
                                           ----------   ----------   ----------
                                            2,547,787    2,508,906    2,495,306

Net income                                 $    7,565   $    6,643   $    6,007
  Less: Preferred Dividends Declared           (1,066)      (1,078)      (1,078)
                                           ----------   ----------   ----------
Adj. Net Income                            $    6,499   $    5,565   $    4,929

Per share amount                           $     2.55   $     2.22   $     1.98


FULLY DILUTED:
Average shares outstanding                  2,528,121    2,499,204    2,488,139
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
  based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price or period-
  end market price, whichever is higher        29,061       10,608       10,223
Assumed conversion of $1.50 Preferred
  Stock Series A-1                            794,905      803,420      803,420
                                           ----------   ----------   ----------
                                            3,352,087    3,313,232    3,301,781

Net income                                 $    7,565   $    6,643   $    6,007

Per share amount                           $     2.26   $     2.01   $     1.82
</TABLE>




                                                                              77
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pascual GARNICA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10578

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 2, 2010.

Stacie B. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Judy K. Hunt, A. Brian Albritton, Sijmon Alexander Gaugush, David Paul Rhodes, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel Lawrence Castillo, Law Office of Daniel L. Castillo, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Pascual Garnica, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel L. Castillo, appointed counsel for Pascual Garnica in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Garnica’s conviction and sentence under Count One are AFFIRMED.
---

Exhibit 99.9

Consent of Peter Lloyd

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, of references to my name and to the use of information
derived from the technical report entitled Technical Report on Peak Gold Mines,
New South Wales, Australia, dated January 1, 2009, as amended and restated on
June 12, 2009, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the
financial year ended December 31, 2009 and I consent to the incorporation by
reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2010.

|/s/ Peter Lloyd                                                            | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: Peter Lloyd                                                          | 
|Title: FAusIMM, BESc (Mining), and Mining Engineer for
      New Gold Inc.

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc., Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-38266, No. 333-54912, No. 333-116973, No. 333-126084, No. 333-130248,No. 333-131744 and No. 333-137994) and the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 33-75268, No. 33-80662, No. 33-93394, No. 333-29801, No. 333-60057, No. 333-79789, No. 333-43504, No. 333-72098,No. 333-117193, No. 333-126083, No. 333-133010 and No. 333-143016) of InSite Vision Incorporated of our report dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/ Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc. 

SanFrancisco, California 

March 12, 2010
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC
(the "Companies") for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive
Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:



/s/ PETER R. HUNTSMAN Peter R. HuntsmanChief Executive Officer


May 7,
2010

---



QuickLinks
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

     1.   Right Associates Government Services, Inc., a Virginia corporation

     2.   Right Associates Acquisition Co., a Delaware corporation

     3.   Conviction Right France, SA, a French corporation

     4.   Right Associates (Belgium), Inc., a Delaware corporation

     5.   Right Associates (France), Inc., a Delaware corporation

     6.   Right Associates & Co., SNC, a Belgium corporation

     7.   Right Human Resources, Inc., a Canadian corporation

     8.   Right Associates, Ltd., a U.K. corporation

     9.   Right Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation

     10.  Right Associates License, Inc., a Delaware corporation

     11.  R.M.C. & Co., SNC, a Belgium corporation

     12.  The THinc Consulting Group International (U.K.), Ltd., a U.K.
          corporation

     13.  People Tech Consulting Corporation, a Delaware corporation

     14.  People Tech Consulting, Ltd., a Canadian corporation

     15.  Pro Transition, Inc., a Canadian corporation
#### Henry Jacob PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-35776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

Tonia Louise Moro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Jeremy Rice, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

*132MEMORANDUM **

Henry Jacob Parker appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot. We reverse and remand.

Parker argues that because he is currently subject to parole conditions, he is suffering an actual injury and thus his habeas petition is not moot. We agree. Although a habeas petition may be mooted by the prisoner’s outright release, *see Lane v. Williams,*455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982), prisoners released on parole “have not completed their sentences, they are serving them.” *United States v. Betts,*511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2007). Because Parker is still serving the parole portion of his sentence, his petition is not moot.

Because the district court dismissed Parker’s petition on the basis of mootness, it did not evaluate his constitutional challenges to the Parole Board’s 2005 parole release determination. This matter is therefore remanded for consideration of the merits of Parker’s constitutional claims.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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. Northshore Mining Company              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Northshore Mining Company

Northshore LAKE 2017-224 Meeting Notice 5-28-20.pdf

Northshore LAKE 2017-224 Meeting Notice 5-28-20.htm

commission-open-meetingsecretary-labor-v-northshore-mining-co-docket-nos-lake-2017-224-et-al05-28.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
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 
-                   United Mine Workers on behalf of Franks and Hoy v. Emerald Coal Resources, LP              

#   United Mine Workers on behalf of Franks and Hoy v. Emerald Coal Resources, LP

UMWA v. Emerald-PENN 2012-250-D-OA.pdf

UMWA v Emerald PENN 2012-250-D Argument Notice 12-5-13.htm

Franks and Hoy v. Emarald Coal Docket No PENN2012-250-D PENN2015-251-D.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
#### PANEL PRODUCTS, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. TECHBUILT, INC., a Corporation.

No. 15696.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1957.

Philip Stringer, Arthur J. Donnelly and R. Paul Sharood, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

John G. Robertson and Kenneth W. Green, St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed on dismissal of appeal filed by appellant.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6120** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ELWOOD JOSEPH CEPHUS, a/k/a Flocko , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Elizabeth City
. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 2:11

- cr - 00027

- D

- 1; 2:13

- cv - 00006

- D )

Submitted : August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Elwood Joseph Cephus, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Severo, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Elwood Joseph Cephus seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on t he remainder of the motion . The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the den ial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constit utional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositiv e procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cephus has not made the requisite showing. Ac cordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31879]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will 
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory 
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on January 17 and 18, 2002, 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Kennedy Ballroom, 8777 Georgia Ave., Silver 
Spring, MD.
    Contact: Jaime Henriquez, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 
(HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express 
delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-
7001 or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-
443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12533. Please call the 
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: On January 17, 2002, the committee will discuss new drug 
application (NDA) 20-757/S-021, AVAPRO (irbesartan), Sanofi-Synthelabo 
(c/o Bristol-Myers Squibb), for the treatment of hypertensive patients 
with type 2 diabetic renal disease. On January 18, 2002, the committee 
will discuss NDA 21-387, pravastatin/aspirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, co-
package, for long-term management to reduce the risk of death, nonfatal 
myocardial infarction, myocardial revascularization procedures, and 
ischemic stroke in patients with clinically evident coronary heart 
disease.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by January 7, 
2002. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled each day 
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Time allotted for each 
presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral 
presentations should notify the contact person before January 7, 2002, 
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or 
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed 
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to 
make their presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 14, 2001.
Linda A. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 01-31879 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### Charlton E. BELL, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. ATLANTIC TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., Ted Sparks, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-10063.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2010.

William J. Sheppard, Bryan E. Demaggio, Matthew R. Kachergus, D. Gray Thomas, Sheppard, White, Thomas & Kachergus, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas Bernard Lang, James A. Bledsoe, Jr., Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt & Wright, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before BARKETT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HUNT,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Willis B. Hunt, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Atlantic Trucking Company, Inc. and Ted Sparks, the manager of their terminal in Jacksonville, Florida appeal from the denial of their Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Compel Arbitration of Charlton Bell’s employment discrimination claim. Appellants contend that Bell’s employment agreement mandates arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). However, 9 U.S.C. § 1 provides that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the FAA do not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The district court found that Bell was an employee as contemplated by section 1 of the FAA, and thus the arbitration agreement in his contract was not enforceable. Based on the facts in this record, we cannot say the district court erred in concluding that Bell was an employee of Atlantic Trucking *371and thus not subject to compulsory arbitration under the FAA.

AFFIRMED.