alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Preventing Litigation and Resolving Conflict

Employment Mediation

What Is Employment Mediation?

Employment mediation involves the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques to 

solve workplace problems and avoid formal and expensive litigation. The process uses a 

neutral third party to help disputants find mutually acceptable solutions to problems arising in 

the workplace. ADR is widely used in society, from family disputes to intergovernmental, legal, public policy and workplace disputes. It has become the preferred choice in working 

toward settlement. 

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) has more collective experience in 

dispute resolution than any other government agency and can offer its services within and 

beyond the workplace. Federal mediators can be highly effective in employment disputes 

ranging from harassment and discrimination, to issues involving workplace relationships and 

conflicts that impact successful mission accomplishment. 

What Kind of Employment Mediation Services Are Available?

FMCS can help your organization by delivering, designing or developing a dispute resolution 

system to enhance EEO and workplace disputes. 

Our services include: 

 Workplace Disputes: FMCS mediators

are available to assist parties in resolving workplace-related disputes, such

as Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO) claims and general workplace

conflict arising from poor communication or relationship issues.

 Systems Design: FMCS can design appropriate methods and strategies to

establish or improve conflict resolution

within an organization.

 Training: FMCS offers training programs to educate organizational staff

and leaders on the benefits and use

of ADR processes such as mediation.

Workshops can be customized to

meet client’s training needs.

Seeking an alternative to the delay, costs, and disruption resulting from litigation? 

FMCS | One Independence Square | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov
“A mediator can serve as an effective intervention in employment disputes 

ranging from discrimination to harassment or workplace conflict.”

What Does This Service Cost? 

Since FMCS does not receive appropriated funds for these services, we are required to offer 

them on a cost-reimbursement basis, in which we charge for the overhead and labor hours 

involved. In accordance with federal requirements, either an interagency agreement or a 

partnership agreement may be developed in order to provide service. There is no charge 

for initial consultations.

For More Information

For more information, visit our website at www.fmcs.gov or contact the Office of International and Dispute Resolution Services at 202-606-5445. 

FMCS | One Independence Square | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov
#### Dewayne Lee ANTHONY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Harvey SMITH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-7138.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.

Dewayne Lee Anthony, Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dewayne Lee Anthony appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Anthony v. Smith,*No. 5:10-cv-00033-GCM (W.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2010). 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.*
**FIRST      AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT**

**Parties:**

**Execution      Date**

**Recitals:**

**Agent**
**Credit      Agreement**

**First      Amendment**

**Agreement:**

**Amendments      to Credit Agreement**

**Conditions      to Effectiveness of this First Amendment**
**Effective      Date**

**Delivery      of Executed Loan Documents**

**Representations      and Warranties**

**No      Event of Default**

**Payment      of Fees and Expenses**

**General      Provisions**

**No      Other Modifications**

**Successors      and Assigns**

**Definitions**

**Severability**

**Governing      Law**

**Headings**

**Counterparts**

**Signatures      to follow on next page.**

----

**ADMINISTRATIVE      AGENT:**
**CoBank,      ACB**

**BORROWER:**
**Pilgrim’s      Pride Corporation**

**SYNDICATION      PARTIES:**
**CoBank,      ACB**

**Agriland,      FCS**

**Deere      Credit, Inc.**

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-2318

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,

a/k/a

SHAKY

 Christopher Williams,

 Appellant 

(E. D. Pa. Crim. No. 02-cr-00172-007)

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT ORDER

It is now here ORDERED that the judgment of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered on February 28, 2013, is hereby affirmed. 

See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005).

By the Court:

 s/Theodore A. McKee

Chief Judge

ATTEST:

s/ Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: September 12, 2014
[Cite as Shroyer v. Banks, 123 Ohio St.3d 88, 2009-Ohio-4080.] 

SHROYER, APPELLANT, v. BANKS, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as Shroyer v. Banks, 123 Ohio St.3d 88, 2009-Ohio-4080.] 

Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Habeas corpus 

not available to remedy claim concerning validity of an indictment — 

Judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2009-0599 — Submitted August 11, 2009 — Decided August 19, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hocking County, No. 09CA3. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

petition of appellant, James R. Shroyer, for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas 

corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a charging instrument. 

McCuller v. Hudson, 121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721, 902 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 1. 

In addition, Shroyer’s plea of guilty to the charges contained in the bill of 

information waived his claimed right to an indictment. State ex rel. Morris v. 

Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 716 N.E.2d 208. Finally, Shroyer’s 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in habeas corpus. 

Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 6. 

Judgment affirmed. 

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 James R. Shroyer, pro se. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Samuel Peterson, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

______________________
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC02-34-000] and Ameren Energy Resources Company; Notice of 
Filing


Central Illinois Public Service Company

December 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 13, 2001, Central Illinois Public 
Service Company (AmerenCIPS) and Ameren Energy Resources Company 
(Resources Company) (collectively, the Applicants) filed with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for an order 
pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act authorizing AmerenCIPS 
to transfer to Resources Company its 20% common stock interest in 
Electric Energy, Inc. (EEInc.).
    The Applicants state that the transaction simply involves an 
internal reorganization within Ameren Corp. and will not have an 
adverse effect on competition, will not have an adverse effect on 
rates, and will not have an adverse effect on competition.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice 
and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-filing'' link.
    Comment Date: January 9, 2002.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31685 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 
-                   FY2010 Justification              

#   FY2010 Justification

##           Downloads        

fy2010justification_1.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
#### Carlos Javier Mendoza RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70114.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 16, 2008.

Barbara J. Darnell, for Petitioners.

Rosarme M. Perry, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the minor petitioners have presented no evidence that they have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that the minor petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to summarily deny the petition for review in part is granted as to the minor petitioners. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

We have reviewed the response to the order to show cause and opposition to the motion to dismiss, and we conclude that petitioners Carlos Javier Mendoza Ramirez and Alma Susana Mendoza have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2005); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction in part is granted as to petitioners Carlos Javier Mendoza Ramirez and Alma Susana Mendoza. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

*427PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
July 26, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals SANDRA F. BERRY , Appellant N o. 14 - 15 - 00398 - CR No. 14 - 15 - 00399 - CR V. No. 14 - 15 - 00400 - CR THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED . We further order this decision certified below for observance.
----

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

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                             |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                      |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                                |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund VIII-B, L.P. |
|                                                            |
| May      14, 2008                                               |
|                                                            |
|                                                            |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                           |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                               |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of              |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                             |
| Managing      General Partner of                                |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund VIII-B, L.P. |
|                                                            |
| May      14, 2008                                               |
Exhibit 32.1

DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                      
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |     |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner               
|                    |  |    
|Dated: May 13, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo                                   
|                    |  |     |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and               
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                              
|                    |  |     |  | (principal executive and principal financial officer)

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge

standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3574 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3574

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules for 
          postponing certain deadlines by reason of disaster.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2021

  Ms. Chu (for herself and Mr. Katko) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules for 
          postponing certain deadlines by reason of disaster.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Filing Relief for Natural Disasters 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF RULES FOR POSTPONING CERTAIN DEADLINES BY 
              REASON OF DISASTER.

    (a) Authority To Postpone Federal Tax Deadlines by Reason of State-
Declared Disasters.--Section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) 
and (e), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (b) the 
following new subsection:
    ``(c) Special Rule for State-Declared Disasters.--
            ``(1) In general.--Upon the written request of the Governor 
        of a State (or the Mayor, in the case of the District of 
        Columbia) in which an emergency or disaster has been declared 
        under State law, subsection (a) shall apply to such State-
        declared emergency or disaster in the same manner as such 
        subsections apply to federally declared disasters.
            ``(2) State.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
    (b) Mandatory Extensions Extended to 120 Days.--Section 7508A(e) of 
such Code, as redesignated by subsection (a), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``60 days'' in paragraph (1)(B) thereof and 
        inserting ``120 days'', and
            (2) by striking ``60-day'' in the heading and inserting 
        ``120-day''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to declarations made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                  PHP HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------
                                                                                

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                        
 



August 12, 1998



To the Board of Directors
PHP Healthcare Corporation

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 33-41577) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-01011) on
Form S-3 of PHP Healthcare Corporation of our report dated August 12, 1998 on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of PHP Healthcare Corporation and subsidiaries as of April 30, 1998 and
1997, and for the years ended April 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which report is
included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

                                    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP