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 
-  Node 
-                   2016 Chief FOIA Officer's Report              

#   2016 Chief FOIA Officer's Report

2016 FMSHRC Chief FOIA Officer Report.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
FMCS | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov

NEWS RELEASE

Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2020 Contact: Greg Raelson

For Immediate Release Office of Congressional & Public Affairs

Website: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8081

FMCS Statement on Continued Labor Negotiations 

Between Bath Iron Works and International Association of 

Machinists Local S6

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) issued the following 

statement today on the labor negotiations between Bath Iron Works and International Association of 

Machinists Local S6:

“Yesterday, representatives from Bath Iron Works and International Association of Machinists Local S6

agreed to three additional articles as progress continues in their negotiations with FMCS assistance. 

Though FMCS cannot comment on the substance or status of their specific negotiations, FMCS

mediators are working with the parties to resolve the issues that divide them. The first two articles

were agreed to on Aug. 3, bringing the total to five as talks continue.”

As is Agency practice, FMCS will not release information regarding meeting dates and locations for 

these negotiations. 

###

The U.S. Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS) is the nation’s premier public agency for 

dispute resolution and conflict management. FMCS was created by Congress as a neutral and 

independent government agency upon enactment of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (TaftHartley Act) and mandated to resolve industrial conflict and promote labor-management peace and 

cooperation, minimizing the impact of these disputes on the free flow of commerce. With headquarters 

in Washington, D.C. and offices across the country, the agency has a proud track record of decades of 

effective dispute resolution and conflict management services for employers and unions across industries 

and work activities in the private, public, and federal sectors. FMCS is also recognized for its success 

facilitating negotiated rulemaking processes and for its robust employment mediation program in the 

federal sector as well as its global program, partnering with more than 60 countries to provide 

international consulting and training. For more on FMCS or to request services, visit www.fmcs.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3721 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3721

To direct the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to 
 submit to Congress a report relating to any structural defects in the 
        Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2021

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to 
 submit to Congress a report relating to any structural defects in the 
        Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON POTENTIAL STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE GOVERNOR MARIO 
              M. CUOMO BRIDGE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of 
Transportation shall submit to Congress a report detailing the steps 
that the Inspector General has taken to investigate any structural 
defects in the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, including the findings 
of such investigation.
    (b) State Coordination.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
Transportation shall consult with the New York State Department of 
Transportation during the course of the investigation described in 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Robin ODUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-14125.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Robert J. Aranda, Valenti Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda, P.A., Lakeland, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Heather Nicole Jarrell, Peter W. Zinober, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, FL, Frank A. Zacherl, III, Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COAR,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable David H. Coar, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robin Odum appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Odum’s employer, Appellee Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEI-CO”), on Odum’s claims under the Private Florida Whistleblower Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. §§ 448.101-448.105.

Odum argues that the district court erred in finding that he did not present a *prima facie*case under the FWA because he did not engage in a protected activity when he reported what he falsely believed to be a fire code violation. Odum also argues that the district court erred in finding that GEICO advanced a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for terminating him — his dishonesty regarding a court appearance. Odum contends he has produced sufficient evidence to show that this purported justification for his termination was pretextual.

This court reviews *de novo*a district court’s grant of summary judgment and will construe all the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. *Skop v. City of Atlanta,*485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir.2007). Because we can decide this appeal without addressing the first argument Odum presents, which is a question of first impression both in this court and in the Supreme Court of Florida, we decline to address it. Instead, even if we assume *arguendo*that Odum presented a *prima facie*case under the FWA, GEICO articulated that it terminated him based on a good faith belief that he dishonestly reported sick leave, which is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. Because Odum failed to present any rebuttal evidence to GEICO’s legitimate reason beyond his own conclusory beliefs, he has failed to show pretext.1 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of GEICO.

AFFIRMED.

1

. This court has reviewed the record in its entirety and finds no credible evidence of pretext.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Humberto PISA-BENTANCUR, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-10310

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2010.

Michelle Thresher Taylor, Esq., A. Brian Albritton, Donald L. Hansen, David Paul Rhodes, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Che Lopardo, Law Office of Che Lopardo, PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, BLACK, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Humberto Pisa-Bentancur (Defendant) appeals his total 24-month sentence for conspiring to transport at least six illegal aliens within the United States, transporting six illegal aliens within the United States, being an alien in the United States without the consent of the U.S. Attorney General after deportation, and entering the United States at a place not designated. The district court heard Defendant’s arguments about Mexico, his family circumstances, and lack of criminal history. Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court acted within its discretion in determining that a 24-month total sentence, which was the lowest possible guideline range sentence, was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


EQIP for GPAs, New Mexico

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, in New Mexico, gives notice 
that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for: Dry 
Cropland in Parts of Curry, Quay, and Roosevelt Counties, Santa Clara 
Pueblo Irrigated Lands in Rio Arriba County. Irrigated Cropland in 
Curry and Roosevelt Counties, Socorro County Irrigated Valley and Rio 
Cebolla in Rio Arriba County.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosendo Trevino III, State 
Conservationist; Natural Resources Conservation Service; 6200 
Jefferson, NE; Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734; Telephone (505)761-4400.
    Copies of these environmental assessements are available from NRCS 
in Albuquerque, NM and are also available electronically on the NRCS 
New Mexico Internet Homepage at: http://www.nm.nrfcs.usda.gov/techserv/ea.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessments of these 
federally assisted action indicates that the projects will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national effects on the human 
environment. As a result of these findings, Rosendo Trevino III, State 
Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an 
environmental impact statement are not needed for these project. Basic 
data developed during the environmental assessment is on file and may 
be reviewed by contacting Rosendo Trevino III.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposed action 
will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Dated: December 10, 2001.
Rosendo Trevino III,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 01-31744 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6577
BERLIN BRYCE FUTRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versusJOHN CARMICHAEL, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-2102-6-18AK) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Berlin Bryce Futrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Futrell v. Carmichael , No. CA-95-2102-6-18AK (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 1996). 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
#### Irma Rosario Noriega SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72988.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 24, 2010.

Vanessa Ortega Bartsch, Esquire, Jessica Dominguez, Esquire, Law Offices of Jessica Dominguez, Studio City, CA, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief 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 **

Irma Rosario Noriega Salazar (“Noriega”), a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her *111motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations. *See Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Noriega’s February 1, 2008, motion to reopen on the ground that she did not establish her former counsel failed to present available evidence that may have affected the outcome of her case.' *See id.*at 793-94 (petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim). Contrary to Noriega’s contention, a presumption of prejudice does not apply. *Cf. Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2004) (applying presumption of prejudice where counsel failed to file any brief on appeal).

Noriega’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect standard in ruling on her motion to reopen is unsupported by the record.

In light of our disposition, we do not address Noriega’s remaining arguments contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30862 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
STEVEN CARTER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:09

- CR

- 90

- 1

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Steven Carter appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the 24

- month sentence is an upward variance from the guidelines range and plainly unreasonable , contending that the district court relied upon u nsubstantiated information, failed to give adequate reasons for the sentence, and failed to appropriately weigh mitigating factors.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 13, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30862 Document: 00514596844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2018No. 17

- 30862

2 As Carter did not raise his arguments in the district court, review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 55 6 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)

. Carter’s
two

- year sentence was authorized by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ; 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a); United States v. Jones , 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court sufficiently articulated i ts reasons for imposing the statutory maximum sentence, as the district court ’s reasons indicate that it had considered , inter alia, Carter’s personal history and circumstances, Carter’s need for drug rehabilitation, and the need for the sentence to deter criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) ; United States v. Kippers , 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012). The district court also considered the policy statements of the Guidelines

. See § 3553(e). Although the Government now disputes the district court’s calculation of the guidelines range of imprisonment, the district court’s decision to impose the statutory maximum sentence was not plain error. Se e Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135 ; United States v. Warre n , 720 F.3d 321, 332

- 33 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 25 6 , 265 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Montez , 952 F.2d 854, 860 (5th Cir. 1992). While the district court observed that Carter was “scaring people” and that “people are afra id” of him, these factors were not identified by the district court as part of its rationale for imposing the sentence. S ee United States v. Rivera , 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015). Finally, Carter’s assertion that the district court failed to adequa tely consider mitigating factors do es not demonstrate that the district court committed plain error. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135 ; United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. Case: 17-30862 Document: 00514596844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2054

MARTIN G. BAYERLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NEIL S. BUCKLEW; RICHARD ADAMS; CATHY M.

ARMSTRONG; KAY GOODWIN; DAVID C. HARDESTY,

JR.; JOHN R. HOBLITZELL; JOHN G. HOPKINS, V;

LUCIA B. JAMES; CHARLES W. MANNING; HENRY R.

MAROCKIE; PAUL R. MARTINELLI; JON A. MCBRIDE;

ROBERT A. MCMILLAN; A. MICHAEL PERRY; JOSEPH

W. POWELL; C. ALLAN ROBERTS; HENRY G. TAYLOR;

DAVID G. TODD; CLIFFORD M. TRUMP, Trustees,

Individually; ROBERT M. BASTRESS; THOMAS CADY;

LISA EICHHORN; ROBERT G. LATHROP; MAJORIE

MCDIARMID, Committee Members, Individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-144)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Martin G. Bayerle, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Randolph Brooks,

FURBEE, AMOS, WEBB & CRITCHFIELD, Fairmont, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Bayerle v. Bucklew, No. CA-94-144 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 28,

1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S 10-KSB AS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         133,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,902,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,269,236
<PP&E>                                       1,284,835
<DEPRECIATION>                                 529,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,111,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,004,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,233
<OTHER-SE>                                        (127)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,111,496
<SALES>                                      9,585,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,838,099
<CGS>                                        7,699,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,580,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               243,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,124,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,124,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,124,636)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.59)


</TABLE>