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, November 21, 2019

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

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

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, Docket No. LAKE 2017-

450. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in concluding that a 

violation of the mine’s emergency response plan was “significant

and substantial.”)

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) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: October 3, 2019

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel

Billing Code 6735-01
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 19
- 00443
- CR
IN RE ALLAN LATOI ST ORY
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Allan Latoi Story petitioned this Court to order the trial court to rule on Story’s motion for DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

. See
T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. ch. 64. We requested a response from the respondent and real party in interest but also noted that if a ruling on Story’s motion was made before
the due date for the resp onse, a copy of the ruling could be provided to the Court in lieu of a response.
The Court was provided a copy of the trial court’s ruling on Story’ s motion. Accordingly, b ecause a ruling has been made, Story’s petition for writ of mandamus is
dismissed a s moot.In re Story Page 2 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Neill Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 15, 2020 Do not publish [OT06]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCUS J. MOORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
R. SCHLICHTING, C/O at Sierra Conservation Center,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 16229

D.C. No. 1:20

- cv

- 01672

- DAD

- EPG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2022 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Marcus J. Moore appeals pro se from the district

court ’ s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging sexual assault,

sexual harassment, and violation of his right to due process by prison officials

. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 16229

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s Eighth Amendment claims

because Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

. See

Bearchild v. Cobban , 947 F.3d 1130, 1144

- 45 (9th Cir. 2020) ( setting forth the

elements for a claim of sexual assault by a correctional officer) ; Austin v. Terhune
, 367 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that sexual gesturing from a

control booth was not sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment

violation) ; s ee also Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 4 2 (9th Cir. 2010) (although

pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to

state a plausible claim)

. The district court properly dismissed Moore’s due process claim arising

from a prison disciplinary hearing where h is good

- time credits were forfeited

because it is not cognizable as a § 1983 claim. See Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S.

641, 646

- 48 (1997) (holding that a claim for monetary and declaratory relief

challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of good

- time

credits is not cognizable under § 1983)

. Moore’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.

AFF IRMED.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.1

    Statement

     

    


     

    To:  Hague
      Corp.

           1864
      Portage Avenue

           Winnipeg,
      Manitoba R3J 0H2, Canada

           Attention:
      Mr. Greg Chapman

    


    


    From:      James
      Mcleod

    5342
      Aspen Way

    Delta,
      BC
      V4K 3S3

    


    


    Re:  Get
      1-4 Minerals Claims, Esmeralda County, Nevada

    


    


    


    


    
      	
              Cost
                of Far 1-4 mineral claims acquisition

            	
              $3,500
                US

            
	 	 
	
              Cost
                of Far 1-4 mineral claims report

            	
              $3,500

            
	 	 
	 	 
	
                                                       
                Total

            	
              $7,000

            


    

     

    


    


    Respectfully
      submitted,

    


    /s/James
      W. McLeod

    


    James
      W.
      McLeod, P Geo.

    April
      17,
      2007
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00358-CR

SCOTT BARRIE MELTON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 09152

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Scott Barrie Melton pled guilty to the first degree felony of 

aggravated assault of a public servant2 in exchange for ten years’ deferred 

adjudication community supervision, a $750 fine, and both standard and special 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a), (b)(2)(B) (West 2011).
2

conditions of community supervision. Appellant also signed a judicial confession

and a waiver of appeal. The trial court followed the bargain and placed Appellant 

on deferred adjudication community supervision on January 31, 2014. The trial 

court’s certification states that this is a plea-bargained case, that Appellant has 

no right of appeal, and that Appellant waived his right of appeal. Nevertheless, 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 15, 2015, more than eighteen 

months too late.

3

We informed Appellant by letter that his case was subject to dismissal 

based on the late notice of appeal, the plea bargain, and the waiver of appeal 

unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal showed grounds for 

continuing it. Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the 

appeal.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is 

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction.4 The Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion 

for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal.

5

 3

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

4

See id.

5

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
3

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this 

case for want of jurisdiction.6

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 29, 2015

 6

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f).
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 - Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company              

#   Direction for Review - Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company

On November 19, 2019, the Commission granted the petition for discretionary review filed by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company in Docket No. PENN 2018-169. 

DFR(Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC)PENN 2018-169.pdf

PDR(Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co. LLC)PENN 2018-0169.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
109 A.3d 218

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD S. HANLON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 013791977).

March 4, 2015.

CORRECTED ORDER

RICHARD S. HANLON, formerly of BAYONNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since July 31, 2013, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RICHARD S. HANLON is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

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

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

DRIVING SAFELY THROUGH 

WORK

ZONES

OHIO

FAST FACTS

IN 2020

28

,

% OF WORK ZONE 

FATALITIES 

INVOLVED A CMV.1

OHIO SA

19

W

,534 CRASHES 

INVOLVING A 

CMV IN 2020,

RESULTING IN 196FATALITIES.2

STAY ALERT 

OHIO:

Visit ohgo.com for the most up-to-date work zone information 

and real-time travel information.

1 National Work Zone Information Clearinghouse 

2 OH-1 Reports

Work zones present unique challenges for 

large trucks and buses. Do your part to 

make roads safer by remembering to plan 

your route, move early into an open lane, 

avoid distractions, obey signs and signals 

to slow down or stop, and keep extra 

space between vehicles.

NATIONAL WORK 

ZONE FACTS 2021

Total Work Zone Fatalities: 956

Drivers and Passengers: 778

Pedestrians and Bicyclists: 173

Others: 5

(Occupants of non-motor vehicle transport 

device and persons on personal conveyances)

Total Fatal Work Zone Crashes 

Involving 

a CMV: 291

From 2020 to 2021, the number of 

fatal work zone crashes involving a 

large truck or bus increased by 41%.

For more information on driving safely around large trucks 

and buses, visit www.ShareTheRoadSafely.gov and for 

more on work zone safety, visit www.workzonesafety.org.

FMCSA-ADO-23-009
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31919]



[[Page 66949]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of December 24, 31, 2001, January 7, 14, 21, 28, 2002.

PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   

Week of December 24, 2001

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 24, 2001.

Week of December 31, 2001--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 31, 2001.

Week of January 7, 2002--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 7, 2002.

Week of January 14, 2002--Tentative

Tuesday, January 15, 2002
    9:30 a.m.  Briefing on Status of Nuclear Materials Safety (Public 
Meeting).
    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--www.nrc.gov.

Week of January 21, 2002--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 21, 2002.

Week of January 28, 2002--Tentative

    Tuesday, January 29, 2002
    9:30 a.m.  Briefing on Status of Nuclear Reactor Safety (Public 
Meeting).
    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--www.nrc.gov.

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

    9:30 a.m.  Briefing on Status of OCIO Programs, Performance, and 
Plans (Public Meeting).
    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--www.nrc.gov.
    2:00 p.m.  Discussion of Intragovernmental Issues (Closed--Ex. 1&9)
    *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-
1292. Contact person for more information: David Louis Gamberoni (301) 
415-1651.
* * * * *
    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: www.nrc.gov.
* * * * *
    This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; 
if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting 
notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in 
receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send 
an electronic message to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f4fbe7d0fee2f3bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="21454a56614f53420f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 19, 2001.
Sandra M. Joosten,
Executive Assistant, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31919 Filed 12-21-01; 11:40 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Hudson Holding Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith R. Knox, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully 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: June 29, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Keith R. Knox                           
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Keith R. Knox                               
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | President and Secretary                     
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31955]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: 01-162]


Notice of Agency Report Forms Under OMB Review

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this 
opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information 
collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This collection provides NASA 
with information necessary for the effective management of government 
property.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received by January 28, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and 
Budget; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC, 
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Kaplan, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1372.
    Title: NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors.
    OMB Number: 2700-0017.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: NASA is required to account for Government-owned/
contractor-held property in accordance with SFFAS #6. NASA Form 1018 
provides for the annual collection of summary data from these records 
to ensure the accurate reflection of Agency assets and related 
depreciation on the financial statements and essential property 
management information.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Number of Respondents: 860.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 1.
    Hours Per Request: 8.
    Annual Burden Hours: 7000.
    Frequency of Report: Annually.

David B. Nelson,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, Office of the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-31955 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
101 A.3d 21

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARIA A. YELLAND, A/K/A MARIA A. YELLAND-YOUNG, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 058001993).

October 30, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-079, DRB 14-080, and DRB 14-081, concluding on the records certified by the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20— 4(f) (default by respondent) that MARIA A. YELLAND, a/k/a MARIA A. YELLAND-YOUNG, of ROBBINSVILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994, should be censured for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonable informed about the status of the matter), *RPC*1.16(d) (failure to protect client’s interests on termination of the representation), and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further determined that respondent should be required to return all fees paid by her client in the matter District Docket No. VII-2013-0031E; And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARIA A. YELLAND, a/k/a MARIA A. YELLAND-YOUNG, is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that MARIA A. YELLAND, a/k/a MARIA A. YELLAND-YOUNG, shall return all fees paid by her client in the matter District Docket No. VII-2013-0031E; and it is further

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

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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D22-0655

_____________________________

K.M.W.,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER 

SERVICES, an agency of the State 

of Florida,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 9, 2022

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Eric J. Friday of Kingry & Friday, PLLC, Jacksonville, for 

Petitioner.

Tobey Schultz, Senior Attorney, Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50378.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 23, 2008.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Beong-Soo Kim, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*544Jerry Sies, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Acosta appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Acosta contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to inform Acosta that the government had offered a plea agreement that contained a departure provision pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. As a preliminary matter, we conclude that any defect in Acosta’s notice of appeal does not affect our jurisdiction. *See United States v. Belgarde,*300 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002). However, we decline to review Acosta’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal because “the record on appeal is [not] sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue,” and Acosta does not contend that his legal representation was so inadequate that it “obviously denie[d]” him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. *See United States v. Jeronimo,*398 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2005). We further decline Acosta’s request to remand for an evidentiary hearing to develop the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

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