alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CA

DRIVING SAFELY THROUGH 

WORK

ZONES

CALIFORNIA

FAST FACTS

15

IN 2020,

% OF FATAL WORK 

ZONE CRASHES 

INVOLVED A CMV.1

146

SINCE 2012, CALIFORNIA HAS SEEN

FATAL WORK ZONE 

CRASHES INVOLVING 

A CMV,

169

RESULTING IN

FATALITIES.2

STAY ALERT 

CALIFORNIA:

Your 2023 Work Zone Hot Spots

• Northern California: Heavy construction zones in the San Francisco and

San Jose area

• State Route (SR) 1/US 101: North and south bound throughout the state

• SR 99: North and south bound throughout the state

• Greater Los Angeles area: I-5, I-10, I-15, I-110, I-405, and many others

1 Work Zone Safety Talking Points: California 

2 National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse

Work zones present unique challenges for 

large trucks and buses. Do your part to 

make roads safer by remembering to plan 

your route, move early into an open lane, 

avoid distractions, obey signs and signals 

to slow down or stop, and keep extra 

space between vehicles.

NATIONAL WORK 

ZONE FACTS 2021

Total Work Zone Fatalities: 956

Drivers and Passengers: 778

Pedestrians and Bicyclists: 173

Others: 5

(Occupants of non-motor vehicle transport 

device and persons on personal conveyances)

Total Fatal Work Zone Crashes 

Involving 

a CMV: 291

From 2020 to 2021, the number of 

fatal work zone crashes involving a 

large truck or bus increased by 41%.

For more information on driving safely around large trucks 

and buses, visit www.ShareTheRoadSafely.gov and for 

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

FMCSA-ADO-23-005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Ray HOWARD, a/k/a D, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-4348.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.

Decided: Feb. 3, 2016.

Joshua B. Howard, Gammon, Howard & Zeszotarski, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Dennis Ray Howard of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute phencycli-dine (“PCP”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012); nine counts of distribution of PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court originally sentenced Howard to life imprisonment plus a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months of imprisonment for the firearm count. Howard appealed and we affirmed the convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. *See United States v. Howard,*773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir.2014).

Upon resentencing, the court sentenced Howard to 175 months of imprisonment for the drug convictions, plus the consecutive statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months for the firearm conviction. Howard again appeals,- arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, determining whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. *United States v. Heath,*559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir.2009). “If no procedural error was committed, [we] can only vacate a sentence if it was substantively unreasonable in light of all relevant facts.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted); see also *United States v. Evans,*526 F.3d 155, *195160 (4th Cir.2008) (“[A]n appellate court *must*defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence *only*if it is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been the choice of the appellate court.”). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
|                                  |  |                                
|--------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K



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

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, Richard S. DeRose, Chief Financial 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-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 31, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard S. DeRose                                 
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Richard S. DeRose, Executive                          
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                308
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      48,934
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1,366)
<INVENTORY>                        70,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  145,032
<PP&E>                            132,254
<DEPRECIATION>                    (69,100)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    316,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             118,736
<BONDS>                           222,916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           18,799
<OTHER-SE>                        (87,715)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      316,617
<SALES>                           160,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  160,232
<CGS>                             109,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     109,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      199
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 13,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (12,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (13,123)
<DISCONTINUED>                      2,710
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (10,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.61)


</TABLE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Rich, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Rich,*118 Ohio St.3d 191, 2008-Ohio-2217.]

(No. 2007-0456

Submitted May 6, 2008

Decided May 14, 2008.)

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Simpkins,*117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.

*192John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Timothy Young, State Public Defender, and Kenneth R. Spiert, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
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. Mach Mining, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Mach Mining, LLC

Mach LAKE 2014-746 Meeting Notice 5-11-17.pdf

Mach LAKE 2014-746 Meeting Notice 5-11-17.htm

secretary-labor-v-mach-mining-llc-docket-lake2014-746.mp3

##### 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          55,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,652,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,924,688
<PP&E>                                       1,853,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                 954,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,837,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,772,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        29,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,962,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,837,985
<SALES>                                      8,427,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,427,704
<CGS>                                        4,737,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,737,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,605,989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,605,989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.59)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            2198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3919
<ALLOWANCES>                                       365
<INVENTORY>                                         22
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6036
<PP&E>                                             723
<DEPRECIATION>                                     260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2389
<BONDS>                                           1093
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                        8211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11697
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5634
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     14
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 15
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         9
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      1,965,400
<SECURITIES>                                  490,000         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,468,100
<PP&E>                                      7,254,500
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,554,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8,177,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         642,200
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  7,535,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8,177,300
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              413,800
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 237,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               20,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                91,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            91,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   91,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .57
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Adam TREVINO, also known as Michael Trevino, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50629

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 30, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Adam Trevino, federal prisoner # 65127-080, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court departed downward from Trevino’s career offender guidelines range and sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment. Trevino appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduc*878tion based on Amendment 706 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines.

“The crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders.” *United States v. Anderson,*591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir.2009).

Trevino argues that, although he was designated a career offender, the district court downwardly departed so that he was ultimately sentenced based on the crack cocaine guidelines and, thus, he is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. Trevino’s argument is unsupported by the record, which reflects that the district court adopted the career offender calculations. There is no indication that the district court based its departure sentence on the crack cocaine guidelines. Consequently, Trevino was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. *See Anderson,*591 F.3d at 791. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Trevino’s motion for a sentence reduction. *See id.; United States v. Townsend,*55 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 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.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 338 

To clarify the counting of electoral votes in Congress to be a National 

Special Security Event. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2021 

Mr. TORRES of New York (for himself and Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To clarify the counting of electoral votes in Congress to 

be a National Special Security Event. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COUNTING OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN CON4 GRESS IS A NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY 

5 EVENT. 

6 The counting of electoral college votes in Congress 

7 pursuant to section 15 of title 3, United States Code, is 

8 a National Special Security Event (as such term is defined 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 338 IH

1 in section 2001(9) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

2 (6 U.S.C. 601(9))). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Joe ABBOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E. TOOTELL, Doctor; J. Grant, Doctor, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14-15599.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Joe Abbott, San Quentin, CA, pro se.

Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants Drs. Grant and Tootell appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *Mitchell v. For-syth,*472 U.S. 511, 526-27, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We review de novo the district court’s ruling on qualified immunity, *George v. Edholm,*752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir.2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied summary judgment to defendants Grant and Tootell on Abbott’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim because Abbott raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his shoulder pain. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim, a prison “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”). Moreover, the law was clearly established at the time of defen*488dants’ conduct that knowledge and conscious disregard of “an excessive risk to inmate health” violates the Eighth Amendment. *Id.; see also Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,*563 U.S. 731, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (setting forth qualified immunity test and recognizing that a clearly established right does “not require a case directly on point”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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