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 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. John Richards Construction              

#   Secretary of Labor v. John Richards Construction

JRC WEST 2014-440, et al Meeting Notice 2-16-17.pdf

JRC WEST 2014-440, et al Meeting Notice 2-16-17.htm

secretary-labor-v-john-richards-construction-docket-west2014-440-etal.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>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000828413
<NAME> SANITARY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LABS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   721
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29057
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         12790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      396274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       721
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 75811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               44817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (120620)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (120620)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (120620)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
### The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United S tates District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-3508

___________ Leroy Coolidge, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Block Drug, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 3, 1997 Filed: January 10, 1997

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Lero y Coolidge appeals the district court's dismissal of hi s 1 employment discrimination action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' submissions o n appeal, we conclude that no error of fact or law requiring reversal appear s and that an opinion would lack precedential valu e. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of Coolidge's federal claims and modify the dismissal of his poss ible state tort claims to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny C oolidge's motions to supplement the record and for th e transcript of a hearing held before the district court.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 
-  Reports & Budget Submissions 
-                   Strategic Plans              

#   Strategic Plans

Strategic Plan 2007-2012

Strategic Plan 2014-2018

Strategic Plan 2018-2022

Strategic Plan 2022-2026

##### 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
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP02-81-001] 

Take notice that on December 18, 2001, El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 37, with an effective date of January 1, 2002. 

On November 29, 2001 in Docket No. RP02-81-000, EPNG submitted for filing ten revised tariff sheets to be effective on January 1, 2002. EPNG states that it is submitting Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 37 to reflect the same maximum monthly California reservation rate shown on the Sheet No. 22 submitted in the original filing on November 29. 

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “RIMS” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link.                 

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-31998 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 10.20

2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers

On
June 3, 2008, retroactive to May 1, 2008, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Environmental Power Corporation (the Company) approved the following base salaries for each of the Companys named
executive officers, as defined in Item 402 of Regulation S-K. These base salaries remained the same for 2009.



|                                                                               |  |             |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------- | -------
|Name and Title                                                                 |  | Base Salary
|Richard E. Kessel President and Chief Executive Officer                        |  | $           | 318,800
|                                                                               | 
|Michael E. Thomas Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  | $           | 227,700
|                                                                               | 
|Dennis Haines Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary                    |  | $           | 221,000
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 
-                   FY2013 Justification              

#   FY2013 Justification

##           Downloads        

FY13budget_request.pdf

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION_0.html

##### 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
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appe llate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00413

- CR

________ __________ _

________

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 12 69183D

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, J J

. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### W ILLIAM 

### R OGER 

### M C 

### G LOTHLIN 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
A f ter W illiam Roger McGlot hlin pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography , the trial court placed him on ten years ’ deferred

- adjudication community su pervision

. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26. But the State later alleged that
McGlothlin violated that community superv is ion 41 times. After a hearing to adjudicate McGloth lin ’ s g uilt, t he trial cou rt found 31 allegations true, revoked
McGlothlin ’ s deferred

- ad ju d ication community supervision, a dju dicated McGlothlin guilty of child

- pornogr aphy possession , and se nte nced him to 10 years ’ confinement.
The trial court ’ s judgmen t order s McGlothlin to pay $450 in reparations : $27 5 for probation fees and $175 for money “ DUE T O CSCD. ” On appeal, McGlothlin c omplain s only that the trial court ’ s reparations order
vio lates his due

- proce ss right. McGlothlin challenges both ba ses of the reparatio ns award

. Co unsel candidly admits that thi s court has rejected the argum ent that a trial
court violates a defendant ’ s due

- pr o cess right by imposing probation fees as reparations , s ee , e.g. , Zamarripa v. S t ate , 506 S.W. 3d 715, 716 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth 2016, pet. re f ’ d) , but he raises it “ to prese rve it for further revi ew. ” C ounsel mak es no new argument to suppo rt the complaint, no r h as he shown that a ny change in the law requires this court to a bandon its precedent. Therefo r e, we declin e to reverse co urse

a nd overrule our holding

.3 But our precedent does support m odi fying the tri al cou r t ’ s judgment to delete
the $175 describ ed solely a s “ DUE TO CSCD. ” With no additional explanation in th e record, this description fails to support a repara tions award. See Hon gpathoum v. State , 578 S.W .3d 213, 216 (Te x. App.

–– Fort Worth 2019, n o pet.) ; Lew is v. S tate , 423 S. W.3d 451 , 461 (T ex. App.

–– Fort Worth 2013, pet. re f ’ d).
We therefore partially sustain McGlothli n ’ s point, modify the trial court ’ s jud gment to delete $175 from the reparations so t hat McGlothlin is obligated to pay

o nly $275 in rep arati ons, and affirm the judgme nt as modified.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Eliza beth Kerr Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivere d : May 13, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MUTUAL RISK
MANAGEMENT LTD.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000826918
<NAME> MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           487,797
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 487,797
<CASH>                                          89,225
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             758,154
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          29,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,592,457
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                853,605
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            234,222
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  87,908
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           37,524
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                128,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                     320,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,592,457
<PREMIUMS>                                      73,993
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             21,520
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (1,099)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     169
<BENEFITS>                                      51,637
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     24,042
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            69,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,766
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,553
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Gelean MARK also known as Kerwin, Appellant.

No. 09-4742.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Monday, Dec. 13, 2010.

Opinion filed: Dec. 29, 2010.

*562Kelly Lake, Esq., Kim R. Lindquist, Esq., Nolan D. Paige, Esq., Office *of*United States Attorney, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI, for United States of America.

Pamela L. Colon, Esq., Christiansted, St. Croix USVI, for Appellant.

Before: McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

McKEE, Chief Judge.

Gelean Mark appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment against him. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.

Because we write primarily for the parties, and because the district court has set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not repeat them here. Mark appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. He argues that the indictment violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. Amend V.

Mark incorrectly argues he has been charged with a Continuing Criminal Enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848 in this indictment. *See*Appellant’s Br. at 15, 20. The indictment in this criminal case charges him with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961*et seq. See*Jt. Appx. 151-157 (indictment).

We have previously held that “[t] he language and legislative history of RICO indicates little doubt that Congress, in enacting RICO, sought to allow the separate prosecution and punishment of predicate offenses and a subsequent RICO offense.” *United States v. Grayson,*795 F.2d 278, 282 (3d Cir.1986). Therefore, “successive prosecutions for a RICO offense and its underlying predicate offenses are not inconsistent with the Double Jeopardy clause.” *Id.*at 283.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders substantially for the reasons set for in the district court’s Memorandum and Opinion without further elaboration.