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 
-                   Sec'y of Labor on behalf of Alvaro Saldivar              

#   Sec'y of Labor on behalf of Alvaro Saldivar

On November 28, 2023, the Commission issued its decision in Secretary of Labor on behalf of Alvaro Saldivar v. Grimes Rock, Inc., Docket No. WEST 2021-0178-DM.

Commission%20Decision%28Alvaro%20Saldivar%20v%20Grimes%20Rock%20Inc%29WEST%202021-0178.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
#### ALEXSAM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant and Interactive Communications Inc., Defendant.

No. 2010-1267.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 15, 2010.

James J. Foster, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., of Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Robert M. Abrahamsen and Hunter D. Keeton.

William M. Atkinson, Alston & Bird LLP, of Atlanta, GA, argued for defendant-appellant. On the brief was Robin L. McGrath. Of counsel on the brief was Brian M. Buroker, Hunton & Williams LLP, of Washington, DC.

Before NEWMAN, FRIEDMAN, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
73 A.3d 565

#### Donna HILL, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 20, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2013, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                 REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
PLATINUM technology, inc.:


With respect to the registration statements on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of PLATINUM
technology, inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report 
dated July 14, 1998 related to our reviews of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not 
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an 
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


                                                /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




Chicago, Illinois
July 14, 1998
Exhibit 23.02


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the use of our report, dated February 9, 1996, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of EZ Communications Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and
the related consolidated statement of operations, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for the two years in the period ended December 31, 1995 included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of EZ Communications, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1996 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
1997.

Our audit also included the 1994 and 1995 financial statement schedule of EZ
Communications, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility
of the Company's Management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.


ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Washington, D.C.
March 31, 1997
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-05-058-CV

BARBARA CRAMPTON	APPELLANT

		V.

NORMANDY APARTMENTS	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On May 26, 2005, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as required by rule 38.6(a).  TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

									PER CURIAM  			

PANEL D:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 30, 2005
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Bell, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Bell,*118 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-3179.]

(No. 2008-0618

-Submitted June 3, 2008

Decided July 2, 2008.)

De Leon Bell, pro se.

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to the court of appeals’ holding on appellant’s first assignment of error below on the authority of *State v. Cabrales,*118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-1625, 886 N.E.2d 181. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with *State v. Cabrales,*including a determination as to whether the offenses were committed with a separate animus under R.C. 2941.25(B).

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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3449 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make certain adjustments 

to the work opportunity credit to modernize the credit and make it 

more effective as a hiring incentive, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mr. SUOZZI (for himself, Mr. HORSFORD, Mr. BEYER, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, and Mr. SCHNEIDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

certain adjustments to the work opportunity credit to 

modernize the credit and make it more effective as a 

hiring incentive, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Hiring Incentive to 

5 Return Employment Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘HIRE Act of 

6 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3449 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT DUR2 ING COVID–19 RECOVERY PERIOD. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 51 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(l) ADJUSTMENT TO CREDIT DURING COVID–19 

7 RECOVERY PERIOD.—In the case of individuals hired after 

8 the date of the enactment of this subsection in a taxable 

9 year beginning before the date that is 2 years after such 

10 date— 

11 ‘‘(1) INCREASED AMOUNT OF CREDIT.—Sub12 section (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘50 per13 cent’ for ‘40 percent’. 

14 ‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY OF CREDIT IN SECOND

15 YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT.— 

16 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall 

17 be applied by inserting ‘or qualified second-year 

18 wages’ after ‘wages’. 

19 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED SECOND-YEAR WAGES.— 

20 For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 

21 ‘qualified second-year wages’ means qualified 

22 wages which are attributable to service rendered 

23 during the 1-year period beginning on the day 

24 after the last day of the 1-year period with re25 spect to the recipient determined under sub26 section (b)(2). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3449 IH

1 ‘‘(3) INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON WAGES

2 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.—Subsection (b)(3) shall be 

3 applied by substituting ‘$10,000’ for ‘$6,000’. 

4 ‘‘(4) ELIGIBILITY OF REHIRES.— 

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (i)(2) shall 

6 not apply. 

7 ‘‘(B) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall 

8 issue such regulations as the Secretary deter9 mines appropriate to ensure a reasonable appli10 cation of subparagraph (A), including prohib11 iting attempts to claim the benefit of this sec12 tion through the termination and rehiring of an 

13 employee.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

16 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 
-                   2020 Affirmative Action Plan for Individuals with Disabilities                

#   2020 Affirmative Action Plan for Individuals with Disabilities  

##           Downloads        

Part J Affirmative Action Report.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
|   |                                                                                                                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 for the periods indicated. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                           |

|                   |                                                                                    |               |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                   |                                                                                    |
|                   |                                                                                    |               |
| Date: October 19, 2009 | By:                                                                           | /s/Melvin Gagerman |
|                   |                                                                                    |
|                   | Melvin GagermanChief Executive Officer, ChiefFinancial Officer, Chief AccountingOfficer |

----
#### Santos RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-10561

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 22, 2008.

Santos Rodriguez, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.

Judy K. Hunt, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Santos Rodriguez, a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as time-barred. Rodriguez argues on appeal that his § 2255 motion was timely.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) imposes a one-year statute of limitations on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 actions. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255 H 6. The AEDPA establishes that the statute of limitations shall run from the latest of four triggering events, one of which is the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. *See id.*

We review a district court’s determination that a motion to vacate is time-barred *de novo. Jones v. United States,*304 F.3d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir.2002). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. *Fernandez v. United States,*941 F.2d 1488, 1491 (11th Cir.1991).

Rodriguez was sentenced on December 9, 2005, and his conviction became final ten days later, when he failed to file a direct appeal. However, because intermediate weekends and legal holidays are excluded when computing the ten-day period within which a criminal defendant may appeal a judgment, Rodriguez had until December 23, 2005, to file his direct appeal. Therefore, Rodriguez had until December 23, 2006, to file his § 2255 motion. *See Moore v. Campbell,*344 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (11th Cir.2003) (holding that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), which states that in computing time limitations “the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included,” applies to petitioners whose convictions became final after the enactment of the AEDPA). And, because December 23, 2006, fell on a Saturday, and because the following Monday was Christmas Day (a legal holiday), Rodriguez had until December 26, 2006, to timely file his § 2255 motion. Because the mailbox rule applies, and Rodriguez signed his § 2255 motion on December 26, 2006, he should be deemed to have filed the motion on December 26, 2006. *See Washington v. United States,*243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir.2001). Accordingly, it appears that Rodriguez did in fact file his § 2255 motion to vacate within the one-year statute of limitations and that the district court erred when it determined that he had not.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
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 
-                   Brody Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor              

#   Brody Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor

Brody WEVA 2014-82-R Argument Notice 4-14-15.pdf

Brody WEVA 2014-82-R Argument Notice 4-14-15.htm

Secretary of Labor v Brody Mining Docket WEVA2014-82-R.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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         667,380
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  559,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,492
<INVENTORY>                                     61,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,303,643
<PP&E>                                      22,733,646
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,763,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,316,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,806,064
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,316,806
<SALES>                                      3,667,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,668,757
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,428,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             155,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,085,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,085,289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,085,289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

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

W ASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

 August 26, 2013

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 19, 2013

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

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry 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. Wake Stone Corporation, Docket

No. SE 2010-95-M. (Issues include whether the Administrative

Law Judge erred by concluding that the service horns on certain

mobile equipment had been maintained in functional condition.)

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: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDDRelay /

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
2014-0252.

#### State ex rel. Conway v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus. On answers of respondents and motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Kennedy, JJ., concur.

French and O’Neill, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.