alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 14, 2005 

Russell D. Feingold 

United States Senator 

506 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Feingold: 

Pursuant to your request concerning our Buy American report to Congress under section 

645 of Division F of the fiscal year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 

108-199), below is the information as required under subsection (b): 

( 1 ) No dollar value 

(2) No waivers 

(3) 100% versus 0% 

Pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c), we will be posting this report on our 

Commission website: www.fmshrc.gov to make it publicly available to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

Michael F. Duffy 

Chairman 

Cc: 	 Senate Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 

the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee 

House Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 

the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee 

4; 0 I ;\! 1•: W .J I•: I~~ 1·: \' t\ \" I•:, :'\: '\\' • ~I '1'1'1•: !1;;00 • '\·\··',..;Ill NC :'1'01'0, (I(" 200() I ·:!0:! I 

Tr·:I.EI'IIONI•:: :!0:!-·1 =~·l·!I!IOO
**Exhibit
      32.2**








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Adam
      DeBard, Chief Operating Officer, of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. (the
      "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      Amendment Number 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
      the
      period ended October 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:
      December 16, 2005




By:
      /s/
      Adam DeBard


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


Chief
      Operating Officer (Principal Accounting
      and Financial Officer)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

April 27, 2018

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 9, 2018

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. The American Coal Company, Docket No. LAKE 2011-

13 (Issues include whether the Judge erred by applying an incorrect 

legal standard in denying the Secretary’s motion to approve 

settlement.)

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

ARGUMENT: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Salvatore F. DIMASI, Joseph P. Lally, Jr., Richard W. McDonough, and Richard D. Vitale, Defendants.

Cr. No. 09-10166-MLW.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 25, 2010.

Anthony E. Fuller, S. Theodore Merritt, Kristina E. Barclay, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Thomas R. Kiley, William J. Cintolo, Cosgrove, Eisenberg & Kiley, PC, Robert M. Goldstein, Thomas Drechsler, Byrne & Drechsler, L.L.P., Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Retái Kimberly Homan, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

*ORDER*

WOLF, District Judge.

On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases concerning honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346 which affect the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss such charges in this ease. *See Skilling v. United States,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619, 2010 WL 2518587 (2010); *Weyhrauch v. United States,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2971, 177 L.Ed.2d 705, 2010 WL 2518696 (2010) (per curiam); *Black v. United States,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2963, 177 L.Ed.2d 695, 2010 WL 2518593 (2010).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties confer and:

1.Defendants, by July 30, 2010, either withdraw the pending motions to dismiss or file renewed motions with supporting memoranda which, among other things, address the implications of the foregoing decisions for this case.

2. If the motions to dismiss are renewed, the government shall respond to them by August 30, 2010.

3. Any replies shall be filed by September 24, 2010.
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 13

- 00027

- CV

William R. and Susan M. Knoderer

v.

State Farm Lloyds, Penni Perkins and Tom Roberts

(No. 74,037 IN 354TH DIST RICT COURT OF HUNT C OUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOT ION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV E FILING FEE

MOTION FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV E FILING FEE

MOTION FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV E FILING FEE

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

INDIGENCY FEE

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51 FEE $10.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$8,385.00

$4,414.50

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID RUSSELL JOSEPH BOWMA N

BEVERLY TOWNSL EY

BEVERLY TOWNSLEY

SUSAN G GARAY

RUSSELL JOSEPH BOWMA N

RUSSELL J BOWMAN

LAW OFFICE OF RUSSEL L J. BOWMAN

JOSEPH SPENCE

JOSEPH SPENCE

JOSEPH SPENCE

RUSSELL J. BOWMAN

RUSSELL J. BOWMAN

RUSSELL J. BOWMAN

RUSSELL J. BOWMAN

RUSSELL J. BOWMAN

RUSSELL J. BOWMAN

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.**

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby cert ify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in

the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness

my hand and the Seal of the COURT

OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of

Texas, this December 30, 2014

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

_______________ _________ Deputy
#### MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMENT CORPORATION and Michael H. Branigin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUG LABS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation and Michael H. Branigin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Emulex Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation and Michael H. Branigin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, and Arm Ltd., Defendant-Appellee. Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation and Michael H. Branigin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Arm Ltd., Defendant-Appellee. Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation and Michael H. Branigin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Archos, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation and Michael H. Branigin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stmicroelectronics NV and Stmicroelectronics, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Arm Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 2010-1474, 2010-1475, 2010-1476, 2010-1477, 2010-1479, 2010-1484.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2010.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation and Michael H. Branigin’s motions to voluntarily withdraw their appeals,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motions are granted and these appeals are dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
-  Home 
-  Analysis 

# In This Section

                      -  Analysis, Research, and Technology 
                      -  Active Research Projects 
                      -  Completed Research Projects 
                      -  Data & Statistics                          -  Analysis and Information (A&I) Online 
                        -  Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 
                        -  Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics 
                        -  Safety Progress Reports 
                      -  Research and Technology Programs 
                      -  Reports & Publications 
                      -  Our Divisions                          -  Analysis 
                        -  Research 
                        -  Technology 

# Technology Division

## About Us

The mission of the Technology Program is to identify, develop, test, and deploy innovative roadside and onboard technology solutions and practices.

### Resources

                        - Active Research Projects
                        - Publications & Reports
                        - Source Guidelines and Standards for Conducting and Managing FMCSA Transportation Research Projects

 

**Division Chief**

Jeff Loftus
#### Gregorio VASQUEZ TELLO; Elvia Lopez Vasquez; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70424.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Jovi G. Usude, Esquire, Law Offices of Jovi G. Usude, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gregorio Vasquez Tello and Elvia Lopez Vasquez, and their family, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order reversing an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA reversed the IJ’s grant of relief after finding the evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption that Vasquez Tello’s life or freedom would be threatened in the future. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion. *See id.*at 998-1001. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to petitioners’ withholding of removal claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Morton Salt, Inc.               

#   Secretary of Labor v. Morton Salt, Inc. 

Morton Salt CENT 2023-0120 meeting notice 4-17-24 (004).pdf

Morton Salt CENT 2023-0120 meeting notice 4-17-24.htm

##### 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
1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-2968

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Timothy M. Curtin, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 27, 1996

 Filed: December 6, 1996 ___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy M. Curtin appeals the 78-month sentence imposed by the

district court1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and

knowingly possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, in

violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. He argues the court

should have given him a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility

reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1; and,

relying on United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), he

challenges the constitutionality of his section 922(g) conviction.

We cannot say the district court clearly erred in denying

Curtin an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See United

States v. Evans, 51 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of
-2-

review). The mere fact that he pleaded guilty did not entitle

Curtin to the reduction, and the court could consider unrelated

criminal conduct--a post-plea arrest for drug possession--in

determining the appropriateness of the reduction. See United

States v. Byrd, 76 F.3d 194, 197 (8th Cir. 1996). Although Curtin

asserted that the drug charge was dropped, he did not deny he

illegally possessed drugs while on bond awaiting sentencing. The

district court properly considered the police report, and Curtin

failed to show he had voluntarily withdrawn from criminal conduct

or associations. See United States v. Fetlow, 21 F.3d 243, 248 (8th

Cir.) (sentencing court may consider any relevant information,

provided that information has sufficient indicia of reliability to

support its probable accuracy), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 456

(1994); United States v. Morales, 923 F.2d 621, 628 (8th Cir. 1991)

(defendant bears burden for establishing acceptance of

responsibility).

Curtin's Lopez challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is foreclosed

by our opinion in United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1103-04

(8th Cir.) (§ 922(g) is constitutional and not violative of

Commerce Clause), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 215 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clintone WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30096.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Craig Michael Warner, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Allan David Beiswenger, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Allan D. Beiswenger, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Clintone Walker appeals from the six-month sentence imposed after the district court found him in criminal contempt for failure to testify in a criminal case, as ordered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Walker contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to discuss the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court was not required to discuss the Sentencing Guidelines because the offense was a Class B misdemeanor and the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to such misdemeanors. *See Taylor v. Hayes,*418 U.S. 488, 495-96, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974) (recognizing that contempt cases tried without a jury have a maximum sentence of six months); *see also*18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(7) (categorizing offenses with maximum sentences of six months as Class B misdemeanors); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.9 (providing that the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to Class B misdemeanors).

Walker also contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to consider and discuss the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This contention fails. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”).

Walker further argues that his sentence was excessive. The district court did not proeedurally err and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the *202totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *Carty,*520 F.3d at 991-93.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
2014-0582.

#### State ex rel. Harris v. DeWeese.

In Procedendo. On motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                           MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Quarter Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30,                      September 30,
                                                      1996              1995              1996            1995
                                                           (in thousands except share and per share amounts)
<S>                                                 <C>               <C>              <C>              <C>       
Net income available to common shareholders             $9,433            $7,696          $27,565          $22,757
                                                        ======            ======          =======          =======
Weighted Average Common Shares
     Common shares outstanding                      18,248,477        17,744,501       18,123,989       17,699,345
                                                    ----------        ----------       ----------       ----------
Common share equivalents associated with
   options and Redeemable Common Shares:
         Options                                     1,647,691         1,552,536        1,647,691        1,552,536
         Redeemable Common Shares                      468,584           468,584          468,584          468,584
                                                    ----------        ----------       ----------       ----------
                                                     2,116,275         2,021,120        2,116,275        2,021,120
Common Shares purchased with
   proceeds from options exercised                  (1,244,709)       (1,078,211)      (1,137,611)      (1,217,904)
                                                    ----------        ----------       ----------       ----------
                                                       871,566           942,909          978,664          803,216
                                                    ----------        ----------       ----------       ----------

Total Weighted Average Common Shares                19,120,043        18,687,410       19,102,653       18,502,561
                                                    ==========        ==========       ==========       ==========

Earnings Per Common Share:
Net income available to common shareholders              $0.49            $0.41             $1.44           $1.23
                                                         =====            =====             =====           =====
</TABLE>
#### Bernardo SALADO-ALVA, Bernie Salado, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74479.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.

Filed Dec. 10, 2010.

Bernardo Salado-Alva, Eloy, AZ, pro se.

Holly Stafford Cooper, Esquire, UC Davis Law School, Immigration Law Clinic, Davis, CA, for Petitioner.

R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Bernardo Salado-Alva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the *230Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part.

A petitioner’s failure to present a claim in administrative proceedings will bar the Court (for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) from hearing the claim. *Segura v. Holder,*605 F.3d 1063, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2010). In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have articulated the claim merely with enough specificity to “put the BIA on notice” so that it had “an opportunity to pass on the issue.” *Aden v. Holder,*589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.2009).

In his brief before the BIA, the petitioner did not challenge the factual predicate to the use of his conviction in determining that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Because the challenge to the fact of his conviction was not presented with enough specificity to put the BIA on notice that contention was at issue, we must dismiss the petition for review for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Petitioner’s remaining contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Medina-Villa,*567 F.3d 507 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

**

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