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 
-                   Robert Thomas v. Calportland Company              

#   Robert Thomas v. Calportland Company

CalPortland WEST 2018-0402-DM et al Meeting notice 10-10-23.pdf

CalPortland WEST 2018-0402-DM et al Meeting notice 10-10-23.htm

##### 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
|                                  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2003 Report on Form 10-KSB
|                                 



Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Form SB-2 No. 333-95775 dated September 4, 2000 and Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-26249 and
No. 33-305136) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan and 1996 Stock Option Plan of Information Analysis Incorporated and in the related prospectus of our report dated February 6, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Information Analysis Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.



/s/ Rubino & McGeehin, Chartered



Bethesda, Maryland

March 29, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF COO 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 on Form 10-K of American Land
Lease (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert G. Blatz, as Chief Operating Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       | 
|       |  | /s/    ROBERT G. BLATZ 
|Name:  |  | Robert G. Blatz        
|Title: |  | Chief Operating Officer

Date: March 12, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Jason LEICHTMAN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 2010-3174.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Department of Justice moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Jason Leichtman’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Liechtman moves to reform the official caption.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons suspended Leichtman for three days from his position as a corrections officer for on-duty and off-duty conduct. Leichtman challenged his suspension through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service under the negotiated grievance procedure. The arbitrator rescinded Leichtman’s suspension but denied his claim for attorney fees. Leichtman petitioned this court for review.

This court’s jurisdiction to review arbitrator’s decisions is limited to matters that *483fall -within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 4303 and § 7512. 5 U.S.C. § 7121. Leichtman’s three-day suspension and related attorney fees claim are not covered under § 7512 or § 4303. Therefore, Leichtman may not seek review of the arbitrator’s decision in this court.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion to reform the caption is denied.

(2) The Department’s motions are granted. The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3637 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3637

 To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund prize 
competitions to accelerate innovation in the prevention, diagnosis, and 
           treatment of Lyme disease, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2021

Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. 
 Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Posey) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund prize 
competitions to accelerate innovation in the prevention, diagnosis, and 
           treatment of Lyme disease, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``LymeX Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to--
            (1) engage stakeholders, including academia, nonprofits, 
        industry, small business, entrepreneurs, and government to 
        facilitate patient-centered innovations in Lyme disease care;
            (2) foster breakthroughs in health education and public 
        awareness initiatives focused on Lyme disease patients; and
            (3) accelerate development of next-gen diagnostics that are 
        rapid and patient focused.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services $5,000,000 to carry out prize competitions (as 
defined in section 24 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3719)) to accelerate innovation in the prevention, 
diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, William W. Douglas III, Chief Financial 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:

(1) to my knowledge, 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.



/s/ William W. Douglas III William W. Douglas III Chief Financial Officer February 14, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and will be retained
by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.625 (4                     5/8                    ) percent for the January-March quarter of FY 2002.                 

LeAnn M. Oliver,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-31951 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66964-66965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31718]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secreatry


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 
December 7, 2001

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under provisions of 49 U.S.C. sections 412 and 414. 
Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the 
applications.
    Docket Number: OST-2001-11085.
    Date Filed: December 3, 2001.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:
    PTC COMP 0881 dated 4 December 2001
      Mail Vote 184 Resolution 010p
    TC2/12/23/123 Special Passenger Amending Resolution from Lithuania.
    Intended effective date: 1 February 2002.
    Docket Number: OST-2001-11124.
    Date Filed: December 7, 2001.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:
    TC23/TC123 Africa--TC3
    Africa-South Asian Subcontinent, Africa-South West Pacific
    Mail Vote 180--Africa-South East Asia
    Mail Vote 181--Africa-Japan/Korea
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 0141 dated 2 November 2001
    Africa-South Asian Subcontinent Resolutions r1-r12
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 0142 dated 2 November 2001
    Africa-South West Pacific Resolutions r13-r24
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 0138 dated 29 October 2001
    Africa-South East Pacific Resolutions r25-r36

[[Page 66965]]

    PTC23 AFR-TC3 0149 dated 23 November 2001 (Affirmative)
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 0152 dated 30 November 2001
    Africa-Japan/Korea Resolutions r37-r59
    MINUTES--PTC23 AFR-TC3 0146 dated 13 November 2001
    TABLES--PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0065 dated 13 November 2001
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0066 dated 13 November 2001
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0069 dated 23 November 2001
    PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0070 dated 7 December 2001.
    Intended effective date: 1 April 2002.

Dorothy Y. Beard,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 01-31718 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anna Griffis, :

Petitioner : CASES CONSOLIDATED

:

v. : No. 273 C.D. 2019

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal Board :

(Albert Einstein Healthcare Network), :

Respondent :

Albert Einstein Medical Center, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 280 C.D. 2019

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal Board :

(Griffis), :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 3, 2020, upon consideration of Designated 

Respondent’s application for reargument, and Designated Petitioner’s answer in 

response thereto, the application is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000827056
<NAME>                        ZEVEX International, Inc

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         2517136
<SECURITIES>                                   956517
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4639957
<ALLOWANCES>                                   138000
<INVENTORY>                                    5742421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13994321
<PP&E>                                         7413479
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1864927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28398362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2618152
<BONDS>                                        1700000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3420
<OTHER-SE>                                     19632082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28398362
<SALES>                                        10142857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10142857
<CGS>                                          5378537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5378537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3788272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             220134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                932407
<INCOME-TAX>                                   338644
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            593763
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   593763
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .17



</TABLE>
#### Roy Haskell PRICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKITHER BODISON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6527.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.

Roy Haskell Price, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roy Haskell Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Price has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
EXHIBIT 21     


                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


     The Partnership is a partner in the following joint ventures: 
JMB/Hahn PDTC Associates, L.P., a Limited Partnership, which holds title to
Palm Desert Town Center located in Palm Desert, California; JMB/Warehouse,
a general partnership which holds title to Minimax 2, Minimax 3, 1801 West
Belt and Pine Forest #17 in Houston, Texas.  The Partnership also owns a
50% interest in Carlyle/Palm Desert, Inc., a corporation that is a partner
in JMB/Hahn PDTC Associates, L.P..  Reference is made to the Notes for a
summary description of the terms of such venture partnerships.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Arthur Barchenko, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Electronic Control Security Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Electronic Control
Security Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
are made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions];

      c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      d) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the registrant's Board of Directors:

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

SIGNATURE                     TITLE                           DATE


/s/ Arthur Barchenko
--------------------
Arthur Barchenko              President,                      September 26, 2003
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer