alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NUMED HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            1854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4515
<ALLOWANCES>                                       315
<INVENTORY>                                         23
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6343
<PP&E>                                             747
<DEPRECIATION>                                     292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2063
<BONDS>                                           1756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                        8132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11957
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11346
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (85)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (54)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (124)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (69)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as submitted for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas V. Brown, President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 10, 2004

/s/ Thomas V. BrownThomas V. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council building, main conference room, 2363 SW Glacier Place, Redmond, Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 3 p.m. Committee members will review projects proposed under Resource Advisory Committee consideration under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. All Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are welcome to attend.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting to Leslie Weldon, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Deschutes National Forest, 1634 Highway 20 East, Bend, Oregon 97702, 541-383-5512.

Dated: December 21, 2001.

Leslie A.C. Weldon,

Forest Supervisor, Deschutes National Forest.

[FR Doc. 01-32053  Filed 12-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Enslow FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6085.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 29, 2008.

Rodney Enslow Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Enslow Freeman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Steve KELLY; Clarice Dreyer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Linda McCULLOCH, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Montana, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-35174.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2010.

Filed Dec. 10, 2010.

Elizabeth L. Griffing, Esquire, Jennifer A. Giuttari, Esquire, American Civil Liberties, Union of Montana, Missoula, MT, Laughlin McDonald, Bryan Sells, American Civil Liberties, Union Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Anthony Johnstone, Solicitor, Chris D. Tweeten, Office of the Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

*

 The Honorable James P. Jones, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Steve Kelly and Clarice Dreyer appeal the district court’s grant of summary judg*219ment to the State of Montana. We reverse and remand.

The district court held that Kelly did not have standing because one portion of his testimony indicated that he did not decide to run for office until after the complaint was filed. The district court also found that Dreyer did not have standing because her claim was derivative of Kelly’s claim. At several other points, however, Kelly testified that he decided to run before filing the lawsuit. Kelly’s conflicting testimony was not a reason to find for Montana at the summary judgment stage. At most, it indicated a genuine dispute of material fact to be resolved by the factfinder.

Under our precedent, however, Kelly and Dreyer both have standing as a matter of law as registered voters, whether or not Kelly has standing as a would-be candidate. As Judge O’Scannlain wrote in *Erum v. Cayetano,*881 F.2d 689 (9th Cir.1989), *overruling on other grounds recognized by Lightfoot v. Eu,*964 F.2d 865, 868 (9th Cir.1992),

> Erum brought this action in his capacity as a registered voter of the State of Hawaii as well as in his capacity as an erstwhile and potentially future candidate. Candidate eligibility requirements implicate basic constitutional rights of voters as well as those of candidates. *Anderson v. Celebrezze,*460 U.S. 780, 786-87, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983); *see also Lubin v. Panish,*415 U.S. 709, 716, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974). Therefore, even if the Lieutenant Governor’s contention [that Erum lacked standing in his capacity as a candidate] is meritorious, Erum possesses standing to challenge the whole of [the] ballot access restrictions in his capacity as a registered *voter.*

*Id.*at 691. There is no dispute that Kelly and Dreyer are registered voters in Montana. Their “basic constitutional rights” as voters are implicated, and they therefore have standing to challenge Montana’s ballot access requirements.

We reverse. We remand to the allow the district court to reach the merits of Kelly and Dreyer’s claims.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                            REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES

         The following table sets forth, at June 30, 2000, the Registrant's
subsidiaries and their respective incorporation jurisdictions. The Registrant,
or a subsidiary of the Registrant, owns 100% of the voting securities of each of
the subsidiaries listed below.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUBSIDIARIES                                                                     STATE OF INCORPORATION
------------                                                                     ----------------------

<S>                                                                                 <C>
Continucare Home Health of Florida, Inc.                                                Florida

Continucare Managed Care, Inc.                                                          Florida

Continucare Medical Management, Inc.                                                    Florida

Continucare Payment Corporation                                                         Florida

Maxicare, Inc.                                                                          Delaware

Maxicare Select, Inc.                                                                   Florida

Sunset Harbor Home Health, Inc.                                                         Florida
</TABLE>
#### Bartolome BRITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gloria Herron ARTHUR, Attorney at Law, Individually and in Official Capacity, Gaspar M. Castillo, Jr., Attorney at Law, Individually and in Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1388-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2010.

*621Bartolomé Brito, pro se, Ossining, N.Y., for Appellant.

Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq., Albany, N.Y., for Appellees.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-Appellant Bartolomé Brito, *pro se,*appeals from the district court’s judgment granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

This Court reviews *de novo*a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. *See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are generally assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Because all of Appellant’s claims were brought pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) or 1986, the existence of a conspiracy, as provided for under § 1985(3), was essential to each cause of action alleged. *Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling,*18 F.3d 188, 194 (2d Cir.1994). To state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Appellant must have alleged: (1) some racial or other class-based discriminatory animus underlying the Appellees’ actions; and (2) that the conspiracy was aimed at interfering with Appellant’s protected rights. *Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic,*506 U.S. 263, 268, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993). Complaints containing only “conclusory, vague, or general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights” will be dismissed. *Ostrer v. Aronwald,*567 F.2d 551, 553 (2d Cir.1977) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Aside from conclusory assertions, Appellant failed to provide any factual allegations that Appellees engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or animus. Having conducted an independent review of the record and case law in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments on appeal *622and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32053]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / 
Notices

[[Page 67500]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory 
Committee will meet on Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at the Central Oregon 
Intergovernmental Council building, main conference room, 2363 SW 
Glacier Place, Redmond, Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and 
continue until 3 p.m. Committee members will review projects proposed 
under Resource Advisory Committee consideration under Title II of the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. All 
Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory Committee 
meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are welcome to 
attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Leslie Weldon, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Deschutes 
National Forest, 1634 Highway 20 East, Bend, Oregon 97702, 541-383-
5512.

    Dated: December 21, 2001.
Leslie A.C. Weldon,
Forest Supervisor, Deschutes National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-32053 Filed 12-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
**Exhibit 31.1**
**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION:**
I, Steven W. Caple, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of Novo Networks, Inc.  2.  Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report.  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report.  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inSecurities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report isbeing prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this Quarterly Report, based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: February 11, 2005                                                       /s/ Steven W. Caple   Steven W. Caple   President
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 - Robert Thomas v. CalPortland Company               

#   Direction for Review - Robert Thomas v. CalPortland Company 

On January 17, 2019, the Commission granted the petition for discretionary review filed by CalPortland Company for Docket No. WEST 2018-402-DM.  

PDR(CalPortland Company)WEST 2018-0402-DM.pdf

DFR(Thomas v. CalPortland Company)WEST 2018-0402-DM.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