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. Martin County Coal Corporation and Geo/Environmental Associates, Docket Nos. KENT 2002-42-R, KENT 2002-43-R, KENT 2002-44-R, KENT 2002-45-R, KENT 2002-251, KENT 2002-261, and KENT 2002-262.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Martin County Coal Corporation and Geo/Environmental Associates, Docket Nos. KENT 2002-42-R, KENT 2002-43-R, KENT 2002-44-R, KENT 2002-45-R, KENT 2002-251, KENT 2002-261, and KENT 2002-262.

fmshrc111705_1.mp3

fmshrc111705_2.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
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

**1331PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW**

**SUITE520N**

**WASHINGTON,DC  20004**

** **

 

 

November 22, 2013

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 5, 2013

 

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

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matters *United Mine Workers ofAmerica on behalf of Franks v. Emerald Coal Resources, LP*, Docket No. PENN 2012-250-D;and *United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Hoy v. Emerald CoalResources, LP*, Docket No. PENN 2012-251-D**(Issues include whetherthe Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that miners’ suspensions forrefusing to provide certain safety-related information to the operatorconstituted unlawful discrimination.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                Jean Ellen        (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
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 
-                   Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc.              

#   Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc.

Alcoa CENT 2015-279-DM Argument Notice 11-17-16.pdf

Alcoa CENT 2015-279-DM Argument Notice 11-17-16.htm

Michael McNary v. Alcoa World Aluminia 2015-279-DM_Nov17-2016.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
#### MING ZHANG XU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1255-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 7, 2010.

*633Ke-en Wang, Law Offices of Siegel Wang & Associates, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Russell J. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nancy K. Canter, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Present: JON 0. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Ming Zhang Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Ming Zhang Xu,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2010), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” *See Zaman v. Mukasey,*514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529*F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

By failing to raise any argument in his brief, Xu waives any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. *See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,*426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). The IJ’s adverse credibility determination alone was dispositive of Xu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. *See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,*357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution, an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable); *Paul v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that when the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims are based on the same factual predicate, a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each); *see also Steevenez v. Gonzales,*476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.2007) (denying a petition for review because petitioner failed to challenge a dispositive ground for relief).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this peti*634tion is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
O rder filed April 1 3 , 201 8



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ____ 

### No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 216

- CR

______ _ ____



### ALLEN BRAY PUGH , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas
Tri al Court Cause No. 26281

- A

O R D E R

T his appeal ha s be come unduly stalled due in part to the failure of A ppellant’s

court

- appoint ed counsel, Joseph P. Johnson

, to file an appellate brief

. Appellant’s

brief was originally due on January 17

, 201 8

. After that deadline passed, this court,
on its own motion, extended the deadline to February 1, 201 8

. Appellant then filed

a motion for extension of time to file his brief , which this court granted, extending

the deadline to March 15, 2 018. On March 19

, 201 8

, on our own motion, we granted2

a n extension and directed that the brief be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 29

, 201 8

. As of today, w e have not receive d Appellant’s brief, nor ha ve we received

another motion for extension.
By this order, Joseph P. Johnson i s ORDERED to file in this court a brief on

behalf of A ppellant on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday , April 23 , 201 8

. At that
time, Appellant’s brief shall have already been e

- filed or be present in the portal for

the Eleventh Court of Appeals through eFileTexas.gov

.

PER CURIAM

A pril 13 , 2018
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     36,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,487
<PP&E>                                         221,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                (60,821)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 304,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,945
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   304,017
<SALES>                                        805,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               805,281
<CGS>                                          603,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  756,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,156
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.71
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel GAYTAN-SANCHEZ, Defendant—Appellant. *578United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel Gaytan-Sanchez, Defendant—Appellant.

Nos. 06-50558, 06-50622.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008 *.

Filed May 27, 2008.

Christopher A. Ott, Esq., Neville S. Hedley, George V. Manahan, Esq., USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lisa M. Bassis, Esq., Law Offices of Lisa M. Bassis, Beverly Hills, CA, Charles H. Adair, Law Offices of Charles H. Adair, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated cases, GaytanSanchez appeals from his jury-trial conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gaytan-Sanchez has waived any contentions regarding his § 1326 conviction and sentence as he failed to address them in his opening brief. *See United States v. Kama,*394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir.2005).

Gaytan-Sanchez contends that the supervised release revocation procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) violate the holding of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Huerta-Pimental,*445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir.2006). We reject Gaytan-Sanchez’s contention that *Huerta-Pimental*is no longer good law in light of *Cunningham v. California,*549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007). *See United States v. Ray,*484 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir.2007) (applying *Huertar-Pimental*post-Cunningham).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60721

Summary Calendar

Mohammad Ridwannul Islam, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A215 913 360

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mohammad Ridwannul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 

appeals his order of removal. He contends that an adverse credibility finding 

is not supported by substantial evidence. He further contends that he has 

* 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

February 19, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60721 Document: 00515750575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2021
No. 19-60721

2

proved his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture 

claims. 

The Board of Immigration Appeals in this case affirmed an adverse 

credibility finding of the immigration judge. The immigration judge based 

this finding on observations such as conflicting statements, demeanor during 

testimony, and an apparent inability to provide details not already contained 

in a previously provided written statement. 

We grant deference to an immigration judge’s credibility 

determination. Wang v. Holder, 569 F. 3d 531, 536-38 (5th Cir. 2009). A 

credibility finding is proper if based on “any inconsistency or omission . . . as 

long as the totality of the circumstances” supports the finding. Id. at 538

(quoting Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)) We will not 

reverse a credibility determination unless the evidence compels it. See 

Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020).

In this case, the immigration judge cited to several inconsistencies or 

omissions. Reviewing the record, we are not compelled to find that Islam was 

credible. See Id.

Argument regarding the merits of Islam’s asylum and withholding 

claims is precluded by a lack of credible evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); 

Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Islam failed to exhaust his 

Convention Against Torture claim by failing to brief it in his appeal to the 

Board of Immigration Appeals.1 Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider 

that claim. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 351 (5th Cir. 2009).

1

 The Board of Immigration Appeals noted that Islam failed to brief the 

Convention Against Torture issue, finding it waived. In our court, Islam does not challenge 

that conclusion, arguing only the merits of his CAT claim. 

Case: 19-60721 Document: 00515750575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2021
No. 19-60721

3

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 

Case: 19-60721 Document: 00515750575 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2021
**EXHIBIT 99(b)**

 

AssistedHousing Fund  L.P. I

 

Certificationof the Principal Accounting Officer of the General Partner

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Brett J.Atkinson, Principal Accounting Officer of Murphey Favre Properties, Inc.,General Partner of Assisted Housing Fund L.P. I,  does hereby certify that this report on Form 10-Q fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of theInvestor Partnership.

 

 

 
| By:    | Murphey Favre Properties, Inc.   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Its General Partner              |   |
|   |                             |   |
|   |                             |   |
|   |                             |   |
|   |                             |   |
| By:    | /s/ Brett J. Atkinson            |   | Date: | May 14, 2003 |   |   |
|   | Brett J. Atkinson                |   |
|   | Its Principal Accounting Officer |   |
|        |                                  |        |  |  |  |  |  |

 

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Monte BERRY, a/k/a B-Bop, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7350.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Jermaine Monte Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North 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:

Jermaine Monte Berry appeals from the. district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Application of Amendment 782 to Berry does not have the effect of lowering his Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Because the district court did not err in .denying Berry’s motion, we affirm. We deny Berry’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.*
*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

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-50898

Summary Calendar

HENRY MCCORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(EP-96-CV-164)

July 10, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry McCord appeals the dismissal of his medical-malpractice

suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2401(b). McCord contends that the statute of limitations did not

bar his suit because his administrative tort claim was filed within

two years of the time he became aware of the factual predicate for
2

a possible medical malpractice claim. We have reviewed the record,

the district court’s opinion, and the briefs of the parties and

conclude that McCord’s claim against the United States was properly

dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons

given by the district court. See Kubrick v. United States, 444

U.S. 111, 118-124 (1977). We add that McCord’s filing of a state

court lawsuit was not sufficient, in this Circuit, to substitute

for filing notice of his administrative claim with the United

States Army within two years. See, e.g., Houston v. United States

Postal Service, 823 F.2d 896, 900-01 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.