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 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   The Commission's Revised Workplace Safety Plan               

#   The Commission's Revised Workplace Safety Plan 

2022 Revised Work Safety Plan PDF.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
#### Theoppolis SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMANUAL, LT., Connell, CO, Bell, CO, N. Davis, CO, DefendantsAppellees.

No. 09-5346-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Theoppolis Sims, pro se, Cheshire, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard T. Biggar, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Theoppolis Sims (“plaintiff’), *pro se,*appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint *sua sponte*pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed his complaint against a Correctional Lieutenant and three Correctional Officers, in their individual capacities, alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this matter.

To state an Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must demonstrate both that he was incarcerated under conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, and that defendants possessed culpable intent — that is, that defendants knew that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk to his health or safety and disregarded that risk by failing to take corrective action. *Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Plaintiffs conditions of confinement, moreover, must meet “minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities,” *Wilson v. Seiter,*501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), which means that prison officials must provide for an inmate’s “basic human needs,” such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety, *DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of*
      *560
      *Social Servs.,*489 U.S. 189, 200, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989).

A review of the record reveals that the District Court correctly found that plaintiff had alleged no facts suggesting that his basic needs were not met or that defendants possessed culpable intent, and that the incident did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.

*CONCLUSION*

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,888                   8,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,534                   4,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                           2,338                   1,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 407,291                 224,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,749                  25,638
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        37,658                  14,661
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,898                  16,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   407,291                 224,102
<SALES>                                        144,596                  80,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,596                  80,676
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,256                  51,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,400                   9,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,018                  10,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,922                   9,859
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,549                   3,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,373                   5,928
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16                     .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

FREDDY S. CAMPBELL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (2:05-cr-00120-1) 

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Freddy S. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Freddy S. Campbell appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to compel the district court to rule on 

jurisdiction in his criminal case. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Campbell, No. 2:05-cr-00120-1 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 1, 2008). 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"1990 - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WPWxWqXKLe\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/1900\/\">1990<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/1900\/embed\/#?secret=WPWxWqXKLe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“1990” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"WPWxWqXKLe\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Bernard E. DeLury is appointed by President Bush as FMCS\u2019s twelfth director. Congress enacts the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. Both are aimed at increasing the use of ADR to reduce the cost of litigation in government and improve government decision-making."}
#### In re Anthony McQUEEN, Petitioner.

No. 13-2066.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 25, 2013.

Anthony McQueen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony McQueen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.2013) proceeding. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. After reviewing the district court’s docket, we confirmed that the district court ruled on McQueen’s motion on November 1, 2013. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,167
<PP&E>                                           1,262
<DEPRECIATION>                                     799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              654
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,164)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,221
<SALES>                                             99
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    99
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,264)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,261)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ADAM NORCROSS

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 122, 2017

Court Below: Superior Court

of the State of Delaware

ID

. No. 0002006278A (K)

Submitted: December 13, 2017

Decided: January 2, 2018

Corrected: January 11, 2018

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice ; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.

O R D E R

This 11 th day of January 2018 , it appears to the Court that:

The appellant, Adam Norcross, was convicted of murder in the first degree

in 2001 and sentenced to death. After this Court’s decisions in Rauf v. State 1 a nd

Powell v. State 2 the appellant appeared in the Superior Court for resentencing. He

contended that he should not be sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of

probation or parole or any other reduction under 11 Del. C. §4209(d)(2). Instead,

he contended, he should be resentenced under 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(1), which is the

1 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016).

2 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016).2

sentencing statute for Class A felonies. The Superior Court rejected the appellant’s

contentions and sentenced him to life imprisonment without benefit of probation or

parole or any other reductio n. The appellant’s contentions have no merit. The

judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its Memorandum Opinion dated

February 10, 2017 rejecting the same contentions made b y the appellant’s co

defendant, Ralph Swan. 3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

3 The answer to Question Five in the per curiam opinion in Rauf applied to severability of the

procedures leading to the death penalty. It had no effect upon 11 Del. C. § 4209(d )(2). Powell v.

State , 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016); Phillips v. State , 154 A.3d 1130 (Del. 2917); State v. Reyes , 155

A.3d 331 (Del. 2017).
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 Nos. RP00-407-002 and RP00-619-003] 

Take notice that December 7, 2001, High Island Offshore System (HIOS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with an effective date of January 7, 2002. 

HIOS states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's November 8, 2001, Order in the above-referenced proceeding, which relates to compliance with the Commission's Order No. 637. 

HIOS states that copies of the filing has been mailed to each of the parties who have intervened in this proceeding. 

                    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. 01-31316 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Cincinnati School District Board of Education, Appellee, *v.*Hamilton County Board of Revision et al., Appellees; Anchor Lyons Limited Partnership, Appellant.

[Cite as *Cincinnati School Dist Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision,*118 Ohio St.3d 263, 2008-Ohio-2450.]

(No. 2007-1217

Submitted March 25, 2008

Decided May 28, 2008.)

{¶ 1} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed on the authority of *Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,*106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979, 834 N.E.2d 782, and *Rhodes v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision,*117 Ohio St.3d 532, 2008-Ohio-1595, 885 N.E.2d 236.

*264David C. DiMuzio, Inc., and David C. DiMuzio, for appellee Cincinnati School District Board of Education.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Hamilton County Auditor.

Siegel, Siegel, Johnson *&*Jennings Co., L.P.A., Nicholas M.J. Ray, and Jay P. Siegel, for appellant.

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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 339 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to design and install an appropriate 

fence around the perimeter of the United States Capitol, including the 

East Front and the West Front. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2021 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to design and install 

an appropriate fence around the perimeter of the United 

States Capitol, including the East Front and the West 

Front. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure U.S. Capitol 

5 Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 339 IH

1 SEC. 2. INSTALLATION OF FENCE AROUND PERIMETER OF 

2 UNITED STATES CAPITOL. 

3 (a) INSTALLATION.—The Architect of the Capitol 

4 shall carry out a project to design and install an appro5 priate fence around the perimeter of the United States 

6 Capitol, including the East Front and the West Front. 

7 (b) FACTORS CONSIDERED.—In carrying out the 

8 project under this section, the Architect of the Capitol 

9 shall take into consideration the need to protect the secu10 rity of the United States Capitol and the safety of the 

11 individuals who work and visit the Capitol, to preserve the 

12 ability of individuals to visit the Capitol, and to preserve 

13 the design of the Capitol and Capitol Grounds, and shall 

14 consider specifically the so-called ‘‘Gateway Project’’ to 

15 protect the Capitol which was proposed by Terrance 

16 Gainer, the former Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 

17 the Senate and Chief of the Capitol Police. 

18 (c) DEADLINE.—The Architect of the Capitol shall 

19 complete the project under this section not later than Jan20 uary 1, 2023. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS