alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

**1331PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N**

**WASHINGTON,DC 20004-1710**

** **

** **

 

 

 

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, Commissioners

            

**ORDER** 

 

BY THE COMMISSION:  

 

              This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and HealthAct of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 

§ 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). The Commission hasreceived a motion from the operator seeking to reopen a penalty assessmentwhich had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) ofthe Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 813(a).  The Secretary states that he does not opposethe motion.  

 

Having reviewed movant’s unopposed motion to reopen, wereopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge forfurther proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s ProceduralRules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.  Consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall filea petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. *See* 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28. 

 

 

The granting of this motion is not precedential for theconsideration of any other motion before the Commission.  

 

 

 

/s/Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan,Chai

 

 

 

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner 

 

 

 

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

 

 

 

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner 

 

 

Distribution:

LouisAllyn

AllyndaleCorporation

40Allyndale Road

P.O.Box 265

EastCanaan, CT 06024-0265

allyndalecorp@gmail.com

 

BruceH. Jakubauskas

U.S.Department of Labor

MineSafety and Health Administration

ThornHill Industrial Park

178Thorn Hill Rd, Suite 100

WarrendalePA 15086

jakubauskas.bruce@dol.gov

 

AprilNelson, Esq.

AssociateSolicitor

Officeof the Solicitor

U.S.Department of Labor

Divisionof Mine Safety and Health

20112th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,VA 22202

Nelson.April@dol.gov

 

EmilyToler Scott, Esq.

Counselfor Appellate Litigation

Officeof the Solicitor

U.S.Department of Labor

Divisionof Mine Safety and Health

20112th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,VA 22202

scott.emily.t@dol.gov

 

MelanieGarris USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO 201 12th Street South, Suite 401Arlington, VA 22202Garris.Melanie@DOL.GOV

 

ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Glynn F. VoisinFederal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

Officeof the Chief Administrative Law Judge 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710GVoisin@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                           5
<LEGEND>
(Replace this text with legend, if applicable)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                      0000826682
<NAME>                                Meridian Healthcare Growth and Income F
<MULTIPLIER>                                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                     1
<CASH>                                                      3,333,000
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               6,257,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           10,042,000
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             50,793,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      32,511,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               50,793,000
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           24,334,000
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           22,564,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          1,024,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               746,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           746,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  746,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.000
        


</TABLE>
#### McCauley v. McCauley.

No. 34475.

May 16, 1950.

*216 P. 2d 978.*

F. E. Riddle, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

S. J. Clendinning, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Several months after final judgment in the district court, plaintiff filed in the same cause a pleading in the nature of a petition for review, seeking in effect to vacate the final judgment and retry the cause.

The former judgment was rendered on complete trial. Although both parties appeared and presented evidence, there was no exception to the judgment or motion for new trial or appeal from such judgment.

The final judgment granted divorce to the defendant, granted substantial alimony to the plaintiff, and granted defendant exclusive custody of the child of the parties.

Upon the filing of this subsequent application or petition by the plaintiff, the defendant filed motion to dismiss such application and upon hearing the trial judge concluded there was no authority in law to so review the former judgment and retry the cause, and the trial court dismissed the subsequent application or petition of the plaintiff. It is from that order of dismissal that this appeal is prosecuted.

The plaintiff, as plaintiff in error here, shows no right to so review such judgment and so retry the cause.

*108Either party to the divorce action had the right and remedy to test the final judgment by appeal and there is continuing judicial authority in the district court to consider and determine the matter of child custody, but no authority is shown for either party to obtain review of the judgment and retry the cause upon such a pleading as filed herein by the plaintiff.

The action of the trial court in dismissing such subsequent petition was correct, and for lack of authority in the plaintiff to so proceed, this appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                        6,230
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                41,183
<ALLOWANCES>                 (1,058)
<INVENTORY>                  40,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             118,090
<PP&E>                       67,090
<DEPRECIATION>               (7,660)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               388,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        77,572
<BONDS>                      165,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                          1
<OTHER-SE>                   104,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 388,972
<SALES>                      308,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             308,870
<CGS>                        208,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                208,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           21,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>              17,901
<INCOME-TAX>                  7,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          10,893
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              (5,223)
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                  5,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-11284

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Robert David Fyke, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-82-1

Before Jolly, Jones, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert David 

Fyke has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Fyke has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-11284 Document: 00516416726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2022
No. 21-11284

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-11284 Document: 00516416726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2022
#### Hazel SWAIN, Administratrix of the Estate of Otho Swain, Deceased, Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE COMPANY.

No. 12148.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 15, 1957.

Decided May 20, 1957.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1957.

*822Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Bruce R. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., (Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and SORG, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s decedent, Otho Swain, worked as a deck hand aboard the vessel of defendant-appellee. On January 23, 1948, the vessel was tied up at a lock in the Ohio River. At 5:20 p.m. the same day, Swain was observed boarding-her. There was evidence that the ship’s cook reported to the captain that Swain was argumentative and intoxicated. The captain himself ate dinner with Swain and conversed with him. Pie testified that he smelled liquor on decedent’s, breath and observed him, in the words-of the district court, “under the influence of alcohol to a slight degree.” Decedent Swain was last seen alive in the dining room. A subsequent search of the vessel proved fruitless, and his body was discovered some months later in the Ohio River, the victim of drowning. This suit, brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and tried to the district court without a jury, is predicated on the allegation that the captain’s negligence in failing to examine decedent and otherwise care for Swain as his ward was the proximate cause of Swain’s death. Aside from the question of the captain’s duty under these circumstances, the district court made the following finding of fact:

> “There is no evidence to indicate that the decedent’s condition was the proximate cause of his death.”

This finding was certainly a permissible inference under the circumstances. The record before us is devoid of any evidence of a causal conection between; decedent’s condition and his death, and-oral argument did not indicate that, there was such evidence. We are unable to say, therefore, that the district, court’s finding was clearly erroneous,, or that we are left with any firm impression that it was wrong.

The judgment of the district court, will be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         771,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  229,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               901,378
<PP&E>                                       9,603,495
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,369,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,135,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          291,255
<BONDS>                                        132,344
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,712,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,135,788
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               851,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               368,433
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                637,977
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            637,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   637,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40191 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ISRAEL AVILES AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-894-1
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to r epresent Israel A viles Avalos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v . F lores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2 011). A viles Avalos has not filed a response. W e h ave reviewed c ounsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 25, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40191 Document: 00512419839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013No. 13-40191

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40191 Document: 00512419839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
#### The BLANTON COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

No. 15741.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

May 16, 1957.

Norman C. Parker, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.

Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for review of order of Federal Trade Commission dismissed without prejudice, on dismissal filed by petitioner.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Airgas, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter McCausland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter McCausland                
|Peter McCausland                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)       
|May 27, 2010                        

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the
Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
      Hudson Holding Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-150432) with respect to
      our
      audits of the consolidated financial statements of Hudson Holding Corporation
      as
      of March 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the years ended March 31, 2008 and 2007,
      appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hudson Holding Corporation for
      the year ended March 31, 2008. We also consent to the reference to our firm
      under the heading “Experts” in such Prospectuses.





/s/
                Eisner LLPEisner
                LLPNew
                York, New YorkJune
                26, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7854.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

David Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Williams,*No. 4:13-cr-01009-RBH-l (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
{"id":54,"count":1,"description":"","link":"\/tag\/final-rule\/","name":"final rule","slug":"final-rule","taxonomy":"post_tag","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags\/54"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/post_tag"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?tags=54"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATMENTS OF: NUMED HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED 9/30/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                       517
<INVENTORY>                                         23
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,796
<PP&E>                                             964
<DEPRECIATION>                                     811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,681
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,683
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,569
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (415)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>