alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40965

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SYDNEY LIONEL ELLIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-164-1

--------------------

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Sydney Lionel Ellis appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ellis

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Ellis maintains that he pleaded guilty to an
No. 02-40965

-2-

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ellis acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Kevin Sean POLK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.F. BEELER; David T. Huband, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-6983.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

Kevin Sean Polk, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*695PER CURIAM:

Kevin Sean Polk, formerly a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 *&*Supp.2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Polk v. Beeler,*No. 5:09-hc-02126-D, 2010 WL 2680013 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
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 Electronic Control Security
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1. The Report 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 operation of the Company.



|SIGNATURE            |  | TITLE                                           |  | DATE            
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|                     |  |                                                 |  |                 
|/s/ Arthur Barchenko |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  | October 15, 2012
|Arthur Barchenko     |  |                                                 |  |                 



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 with the electronic
version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC

Consol PENN 2019-0008Meeting Notice 10-22-20_Revised.pdf

Consol PENN 2019-0008Meeting Notice 10-22-20_Revised.htm

commission-open-meetingsecretary-labor-v-consol-pennsylvania-coal-co-llc-docket-no-penn-2019-000810.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
EX-35 (b)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.




March 12, 2007


Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
    Trust, Series 2006-ASAP2


Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 3/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(a)  A review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
     or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
     or such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer
     or Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
     supervision.

(b)  To the best of such Officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or Servicing
     Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or
     portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
     obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to
     such officer and the nature and status thereof.

(c)  Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
     extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications
     or assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of
     noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the applicable
     reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.



Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A


Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action
has been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.


Reporting Errors

During the reporting period, one or more of the monthly investor reports
contained certain types of errors in regard to the calculation and or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets. To the best of the signing
officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been material,
has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has been
disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the reporting
period.
Exhibit 12

Statement Regarding the Computation of Ratios

a.   The percentage ratio of net income to average total assets is calculated by
     dividing  the 1999  and 1998 net  income  of  $10,429,000  and  $9,246,000,
     respectively,   by  the  average   total   assets  for  1999  and  1998  of
     $1,429,852,000 and $1,255,617,000, respectively.

b.   The  percentage  ratio of net  income to  average  shareholders'  equity is
     calculated  by  dividing  the 1999 and 1998 net income of  $10,429,000  and
     $9,426,000,  respectively, by the average shareholders' equity for 1999 and
     1998 of $93,574,000 and $99,448,000, respectively.

c.   The  percentage  ratio of average  shareholders'  equity to  average  total
     assets is  calculated  by dividing the 1999 and 1998 average  shareholders'
     equity of $93,574,000 and $99,448,000,  respectively,  by the average total
     assets   for   1999  and  1998  of   $1,429,852,000   and   $1,255,617,000,
     respectively.

d.   The percentage ratio of cash dividends declared to net income is calculated
     by dividing the 1999 and 1998 cash  dividends  declared of  $6,996,000  and
     $4,882,000,   respectively,  by  the  net  income  for  1999  and  1998  of
     $10,429,000 and $9,426,000, respectively.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      35,908,828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,697,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,231,881
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,880,781
<PP&E>                                      40,674,330
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,596,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,272,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,592,194
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,272,593
<SALES>                                     18,597,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,597,027
<CGS>                                       17,341,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,755,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (306,055)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,193,938)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,193,938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,193,938)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

May 31, 2016

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 13, 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 on behalf of McGary, et al. v. The Marshall County Coal 

Company, et al., Docket Nos. WEVA 2015-583-D, et al. (Issues 

include whether the Judge erred in ruling that certain statements by 

mine management constituted an interference with miners’ safety 

rights.)

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
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for  the  year  ended December  31, 2001 for  Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1986-X Limited Partnership.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002
#### Mark ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; Warden U.S.P. Lee, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 15-7216.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 31, 2015.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2016.

Mark Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Roberts, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, al*178though we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Roberts v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,*No. 7:14-cv-00233-MFU-RSB, 2015 WL 3559868 (W.D.Va. June 5, 2015; June 30, 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.*
DISCIPLINARY CASES

2013-1885.

#### Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown.

This cause is pending before the court upon the filing of a certification of default by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

Upon consideration of relator’s motion to initiate default proceedings, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. This matter is remanded to the board for further proceedings under Gov.Bar R. V(6a)(7).

The court further orders that the interim default-judgment suspension imposed against respondent on January 8, 2014, shall remain in place while this matter is pending before the board. Proceedings before this court in this case are stayed until further order of this court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

IL/RESEARCH 1

09-55268

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QUINCY WINSTON ADAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SHELDON BROOKS, DDS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-55268

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02215-AHS-SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Quincy Winston Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

FILED

MAR 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
IL/RESEARCH 2

09-55268

deliberate indifference to his dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sorrels v.

McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002), and we vacate and remand.

The record does not indicate that the district court provided Adams with any

notice under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Further,

the error was not harmless because it does not appear that Adams had recently

received a Rand notice in any other litigation, and the record does not disclose that

he had a complete understanding of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56. See id. at 961-62.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,423
<INVENTORY>                                     56,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,310
<PP&E>                                         103,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,119
<BONDS>                                         75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,504
<SALES>                                        397,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          283,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
        

</TABLE>