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. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

Sunbelt VA 2013-291 Meeting Notice 7-17-19.pdf

Sunbelt VA 2013-291 Meeting Notice 7-17-19.htm

commission-open-meetingsecretary-labor-v-sunbelt-rentals-inc-docket-no-va-2013-29107-17-2019.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: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
2014-0822.

#### State v. Whatley.

Guernsey App. No. 13CA26, 2014-Ohio-1126. On motion for delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

May 30, 2019

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 13, 2019

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Solar Sources Mining, LLC,*Docket No. LAKE 2017-99. (Issuesinclude whether the Judge abused his discretion and failed to adequatelyexplain the basis for the civil penalty he imposed.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)867-4769

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LLOYD LENWOOD WALKER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-84, CA-98-779-7) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Lloyd Lenwood Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lloyd Lenwood Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Walker , Nos. CR-95-84; CA-98-779-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2000). 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
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00083

- CR

__________ ____________ _____

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CR20

- 0471
Before Birdwell, Bassel, Womack, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell 

### D AVID 

### M ICHAEL 

### B ROWN 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Mic hael Bro wn appeal s his conviction for felony d riving while
intoxicated , as enhanced by a pri or f elony con viction

. Brown pleaded guilty pursuant

to a plea agreem ent, and the trial court sentenced him in accordance w ith th e agreement to fif teen years ’ confinement

. As part of his a greement, Br own waived his right to appeal. T he trial court ’ s certification thus state d (1) that this is a plea

- bargain

cas e and Brown has no right to ap peal, and (2 ) that Brown ha s waived his ri g ht to appeal. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2 (a)(2) , (d ).
We notified Brown of the certification issue and informed him that unless he

or another party filed a response by June 28, 2021, s ho wing grounds for continuing the appeal , we would dismiss it

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3

. In his re spo nse, B rown a rgue s that he received ineffective assistance of

cou nsel. However, this arg ument does not provide a valid ba sis for continuing the appeal

. S ee Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 80 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2001) ; Williams v. State , No. 02

- 19

- 00415

- CR, 2019 WL 7407717, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth Dec. 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op. , not designated f or publication). Indeed, t his case does not
fit any of th e r ec ognized bas es for appeal of a bargaine d

- for se ntence : t he record
does not reflect that B rown ’s sente nce exceeded the State ’ s recommendation , that he
is appeal ing a matter raised by a written m otion that was ruled on before trial , or that

1 B ased on ou r independent review of the record , w e have deter min ed that the certification contains no defe ct s . See Jones v. State , 488 S.W.3d 801, 80 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

.3 the trial co urt granted Brown permission to appeal. See Tex. Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; Tex. R. Ap p. P. 25.2(a ) (2).
Therefore , consistent with the trial court ’s certification , we dismiss the appeal

. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f)

. /s/ Wade Birdwell
W ade Birdw ell Just ice
Do No t Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : July 29, 2021
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

May 24, 2019

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 5, 2019

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *McNaryv. Alcoa World Alumina, LLC,*Docket No. CENT 2015-279-DM. (Issues includewhether the Judge erred by determining that the complainant had failed toestablish interference with his rights under the Mine Act.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)867-4769

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
1

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-9095

Summary Calendar.

Louie ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TEXAS STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS, et al., Defendants,

William E. Maddox, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Sept. 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

This action was filed in 1989 by Louie Armstrong alleging

various causes of action relating to the termination of his

employment with the Texas State Board of Barber Examiners. In lieu

of an answer, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss based, inter

alia, on qualified immunity. The motion was granted in part but

was denied as to the defense of qualified immunity. According to

the district court docket sheet, there was no activity in the case

until 1992 when the parties announced that the case had settled and

it was dismissed. Several months later, however, Armstrong,

asserting that the settlement had collapsed, moved to reopen the

case and to amend his complaint. Thereafter, the parties entered

a scheduling order, and Armstrong moved to compel the defendants to

respond to his discovery requests. The defendants then filed a

motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and a
 

1This is the only difference identified by the defendants in

the supplemental brief requested by the court to address the

implications of Phillips v. Montgomery County. 

2

motion to stay discovery. The district court again denied the

claim of qualified immunity and the defendants filed their notice

of appeal.

In Phillips v. Montgomery County, 24 F.3d 736 (5th Cir.1994),

we held that defendants cannot fail to appeal the denial of

qualified immunity and then "restart the appellate clock by

refiling substantially the same motion." Here, it is clear that

the defendants' motion to dismiss and the motion for summary

judgment raise the same defense, that is, that they are entitled to

qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not asserted the

deprivation of a constitutional right. Further, neither motion

relies on material outside the pleadings; nor were any new

pleadings filed after the first motion to dismiss.

In the end, the two motions are only distinguishable because

they are brought under different rules and are guided by different

standards of review.1 These asserted differences are, however,

illusory. The motion to dismiss, brought before any discovery was

conducted in the case, is primarily a vehicle to test the

sufficiency of the pleadings as to qualified immunity. See Jackson

v. City of Beaumont, 958 F.2d 616, 168 (5th Cir.1992). That motion

was denied. The second motion, although styled a motion for

summary judgment was simply another motion addressing the

pleadings, as evidenced by the defendants' motion to stay

discovery. Under these unique circumstances, the two motions are
3

substantially the same. Accordingly, this appeal is untimely and

is therefore

DISMISSED.
2014-0447.

#### State ex rel. Humberto v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court.

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

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

March 30, 2016

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 20, 2016

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F 

Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. The American Coal Company, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-

701, et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred by not requiring 

that the Secretary prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the amounts of proposed penalties based on special assessments

were appropriate.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,384,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,385,200      
<PP&E>                                       7,137,800     
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,111,300    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,431,100     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          837,800   
<BONDS>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,590,000      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,431,100        
<SALES>                                              0         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               840,900         
<CGS>                                                0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  526,100         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,700      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                143,300      
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            143,300     
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0     
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   143,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        

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

[Cite as *State v. Cruzado,*118 Ohio St.3d 196, 2008-Ohio-2200.]

*197(No. 2007-1468

Submitted May 6, 2008

Decided May 14, 2008.)

Dennis P. Will, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Billie Jo Belcher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

John P. Parker, for appellant.

{¶ 1} As to Proposition of Law No. I, 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.

{¶ 2} As to Proposition of Law No. II, the cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

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

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
#### Trumbull County Bar Association *v.*Large.

[Cite as *Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Large,*139 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2014-Ohio-2757.]

(No. 2012-0691

Submitted June 19, 2014

Decided June 27, 2014.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, John Harold Large, Attorney Registration No. 0068732, last known business address in Warren, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court, coming now to consider its order of November 29, 2012, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of period of two years with the final six months stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

February 6, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                1:00 p.m., Thursday, February 19, 2015

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *BigRidge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,*Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-699-R, et al.; and*Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor*, Docket Nos. SE2011-477-R, et al.**(Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judgeserred in upholding certain orders issued pursuant to sections 103(j) and 103(k)of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
Exhibit 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-31852, No. 33-39266, No. 33-45127, No. 33-76066 and No.
33-67945) pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-67973) pertaining to the 1997 Equity Compensation
Plan, Stock Option Plan for Directors and Charles A. Root Stock Option Agreement
of Tangram Enterprise Solutions, Inc. of our report dated January 31, 2000, with
respect to the financial statements and schedule of Tangram Enterprise
Solutions, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1999.



                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



    Raleigh, North Carolina
    March 27, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                                  516
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        516
<PP&E>                                                  650
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        1,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,167,616
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                         (1,166,450)
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          1,166
<SALES>                                              71,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     71,529
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      5,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      66,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  66,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         66,028
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.03



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

Keller Bruner & Company, L.L.C.
Certified Public Accountants


The Board of Directors
FCNB Corp

We consent to  incorporation  by reference of our report dated  January 28, 1997
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of FCNB Corp and its subsidiaries of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related  consolidated  statements of income,
changes  in  shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for each of the years in the
three year period ended  December 31, 1996,  which report  appears on page 43 of
the 1996 FCNB Corp Annual Report, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in the
following Registration  Statements of FCNB Corp: Number 33-63092 on Form S-8 and
Number 33-55040 on Form S-3.



Keller Bruner & Company, L.L.C.
Frederick, Maryland
March 14, 1997