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 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   President Biden Designates Arthur R. Traynor III as Chair              

#   President Biden Designates Arthur R. Traynor III as Chair

Arthur Traynor III Chair Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.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
# Wright Brothers Day, 2001

On December 17, 1903, from the dunes near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Orville Wright made the first manned flight in an engine-powered aircraft. Though the flight only covered 120 feet and lasted just 12 seconds, Orville and his brother Wilbur Wright changed history on that cold and gusty winter day.

Success had not come easily to the Wright brothers. Many thought powered flight impossible; and skeptics called the Wrights dreamers for even entertaining the idea. Undeterred, the Wrights spent years in study, analyzing the flight of birds and experimenting with model airplanes in their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. After many trials and errors, the Wright brothers finally achieved a controlled flight and opened the door to a new world.

On December 17 of each year, we honor the Wright brothers for their contributions to our Nation. Their invention of powered flight made the world community more connected. We have since traveled to the Moon and back, and space shuttles orbit our planet. All of these amazing advances can be traced back to that windy day at Kitty Hawk when the indomitable will of the Wrights persevered to triumph over the supposed impossible.

Air travel now is an essential part of this Nation's everyday life. This proud industry will endure through the new challenges presented by the tragedies of September 11. Joining together as a Nation, we will continue to strengthen security while maintaining the economic and social benefits of an efficient air transportation system.

This Wright Brothers Day we salute all the scientific pioneers and visionaries who, despite the critics, have over come seemingly insurmountable odds and made great advances for man. The Wright brothers' perseverance and creativity can serve as an inspiration for those inventors who will take us to new heights in the 21st century.

The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963 (77 Stat. 402; 36 U.S.C. 143), has designated December 17 of each year as “Wright Brothers Day,” and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 17, 2001, as Wright Brothers Day.                              ( print page 65090)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

[FR Doc. 01-31208

Billing code 3195-01-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 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Sec'y of Labor on behalf of John Collins              

#   Sec'y of Labor on behalf of John Collins

On October 11, 2023, the Commission issued its decision in Sec'y obo Collins v. Crimson Oak Grove Resources, LLC, Docket No. SE 2023-0235.  

Commission Decision(SEC-Collins v Crimson Oak Groves Resources LLC)SE 2023-0235.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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe De Jesus MALDONADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40222

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*911PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe de Jesus Maldonado-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Maldonado-Martinez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
|                                  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2004 Report on Form 10-KSB



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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Sandor Rosenberg,
Chief Executive Officer of Information Analysis Incorporated, a Virginia corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1 | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (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 result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: March 28, 2005 |  | By: |  | /S/ Sandor Rosenberg                         
|                     |  |     |  | Sandor Rosenberg, Chairman of the            
|                     |  |     |  | Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Information Analysis Incorporated and will be retained by Information Analysis Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request



19
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT IVAN KILGORE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. AR NO NAPPI, Se nior Libra rian; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15711 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01822-WB SKJN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ivan Kilgore , a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de nia l of a c c e ss to the c ourts. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo 

# FIL ED MAR 20 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A. W ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Kilgore ’ s a c tion be c a use Kilgore fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he suffe re d

an a c t ua l injury a s a re sult of de fe nda nts’ c onduc t. Se eLe w is v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (a c c e ss-toc ourts c la im

re quire s the pla intiff to show tha t the de fe nda

nts’ c o nduc t c a

use d a c tua l injury

to a non-frivolous le ga l c la im ); se ealso Silv a v . DiVittorio , 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-04 (9th C ir. 2011) (disc ussing “ a ffirm at ive a ssista nc e ” and

“ inte rfe re nc e ” a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la im s). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng le ave to a

m e nd the se c o nd a m e nde d c om

pla int be c a

use furthe r am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se eManzarek v . St. Paul Fire & Marine

Ins. C o ., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t de nia l of le ave to am e nd is im

prope r unle ss it is c le ar that the c o m pla int c ould not besa

ve d by am e ndm e nt); se ealso Me tzle r Inv . GMBH v . C orinthian C

olls., Inc ., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th C ir. 2008) (a distric t c o urt’ s disc re t ion to de ny le ave to a

m e nd is pa rtic u la rly broa d whe re pla intiff ha s pre viously am e nde d). Appe lle e s’ m otion to ta

ke judic i a l notic e , file d Se pte m be r 12, 2014, is grante d. 1 4 - 1 5 7 1 1 2Kilgore ’ s “ M otion R e que sting Orde r Dire c ting C le rk of the Distric t C ourt to

Produc e R e c ord of Proc e e dings,” file d De c e m be r 31, 2014, is denie d a s unne c e ssa

ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 7 1 1 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                  NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                                  313
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        313
<PP&E>                                                  650
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,233,441
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                         (1,232,478)
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            963
<SALES>                                              81,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     81,296
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     (1,431)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      82,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  82,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         82,727
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.04



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000825851
<NAME> WELLESLEY LEASE INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IV FDS 9/30/97
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         215,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,134
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               300,843
<PP&E>                                       3,331,637
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,591,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,041,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,279
<BONDS>                                        348,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       12,149,459
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,528,514)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,041,025
<SALES>                                        833,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               974,655
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               514,466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (36,729)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                414,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            414,810
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   414,810
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    14.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
768 S.E.2d 669

#### In the Matter of Dannitte Mays DICKEY, Respondent.

Appellate Case Nos. 2015-000228, 2015-000229, 2015-000232.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 11, 2015.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to issue an order placing respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, or in the alternative, transferring respondent to incapacity inactive status pursuant to Rule 28, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The petition also seeks appointment of the Receiver pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended and respondent is transferred to incapacity inactive status until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peyre Thomas Lump-kin, Esquire, Receiver, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to *428protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts) of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the aecount(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that the Receiver, Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that the Receiver, Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin’s office.

Mr. Lumpkin’s appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

/s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30712 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ROGER DALE ABRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-60054
- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roger Dale Abraham appeals his sentence following conviction for six counts of mail fraud. Abraham contends that the district court erred in sentencing him by failing to depart downward, by finding that he committed an "intended loss," and, in the alternative, by miscalculating the amount of "intended loss" in determining his base offense level. Insofar as Abraham is arguing that the district court should have applied U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.10) by departing downward, this court has no jurisdiction. See United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).No. 95-30712 -2- The district court did not clearly err in determining the "intended loss" to be the face value of the fraudulent money orders. AFFIRMED.