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

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
 

SUITE 9500
 

WASHINGTON, DC 20001
 

August 5, 2010 

TIME AND DATE: 3:00 p.m., Thursday, August 12, 2010 

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following two cases 

in open session: Secretary of Labor on behalf of Mark Gray v. North 

Fork Coal Corp., Docket No. KENT 2009-1429-D; and Kevin Baird 

v. PCS Phosphate Co., SE 2010-74-DM . (Issues include whether a 

temporary reinstatement order remains in effect in situations where 

the Secretary of Labor subsequently determines that no violation of 

section 105(c) of the Mine Safety and Health Act has occurred .) 

A majority of the Commission members have determined that agency 

business requires that no earlier notice of this meeting could be given. 

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 TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
#### ALTANA PHARMA AG (now known as Nycomed GmbH) and WYETH (now known as Wyeth LLC), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Parental Medicines, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Advanced Research Centre, Ltd., and Sun Pharma Global, Inc., Defendants, and Kudco Ireland Limited and Schwarz Pharma, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2010-1491.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

KUDco Ireland Limited and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. (KUDco) move to stay proceedings in this appeal pending district court action. The court considers whether KUDco’s appeal should be dismissed as premature.

In this consolidated case, Altana Pharma AG and Wyeth sued the defendants for patent infringement. On July 16, 2010 and July 20, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an “Order & Final Judgment” against KUDco on its defenses and counterclaims. However, the district court has not entered a final judgment as to all the parties and all the issues, and has not certified the order against KUDco pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b).

Because there are still claims pending before the district court, we deem the better course is to dismiss the appeal as premature. *See Nystrom v. TREX Co.,*339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2003). After the district court has adjudicated all the claims of all the parties, or entered a Rule 54(b) judgment, KUDco may file a timely appeal.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) KUDco’s motion is denied.

(2) The appeal is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(4) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
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 
-                   Third Quarterly Progress Report              

#   Third Quarterly Progress Report

##           Downloads        

3DOL_FMSHRC_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
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Timothy Ruane, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended and that information contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InSite Vision Incorporated.



By:

/s/    TIMOTHY RUANEName:

Timothy RuaneTitle:

Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date:

March 4, 2011


CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Louis Drapeau, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of InSite Vision Incorporated.



By:

/s/    LOUIS DRAPEAUName:

Louis DrapeauTitle:

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)Date:

March 4, 2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1394

GAIL EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL COLLEGE; CLIFTON ELLIOTT, a/k/a Rusty Elliott, individually and in his official capacity as agent and Dean of Instruction of Williamsburg Technical College; RONALD HAMPTON, in his official position as acting President of Williamsburg Technical College, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cv-03939-TLW) Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Bell, THE BELL LAW FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Karla McLawhorn Hawkins, BOYKIN, DAVIS & HAWKINS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gail Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and her state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment may only be granted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the materials before us on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Evans v. Williamsburg Tech. Coll. , No. 4:03-cv-03939-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2007). 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
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2014-0655.

#### Chester/83 L.L.C. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2010-3322, 201H183, and 2011-4184. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Upon consideration of appellants’ application for dismissal, it is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Notice is hereby given that by the following three petitions, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was requested to take immediate corrective actions to protect the public against the possibility of terrorists seizing control of a large commercial jetliner and crashing into a nuclear power plant in the United States. 

1. From Mr. Norm Cohen, on behalf of the UNPLUG Salem Campaign, dated September 17, 2001. 

2. From Mr. Michael D. Kohn, on behalf of the National Whistleblower Center and Randy Robarge, dated October 24, 2001. 

3. From Messrs. Alex Matthiessen, and Karl Coplan, on behalf of the Riverkeeper, Inc., et al, dated November 8, 2001. 

The petitioners requested that the NRC staff take certain specified compensatory measures, to protect the public and environment from the catastrophic impact of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant or a spent fuel pool. 

These requests are being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. These requests have been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on these petitions within a reasonable time. 

                    Since the subject of these petitions involves safeguards matters, the NRC                           ( print page 67335)                        has decided not to make the petitions public or publicly discuss the petitions to avoid disclosure of potentially sensitive security information.                 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of December 2001. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Brian W. Sheron, 

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 01-31930 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
No. 04-16-00404-CV

IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

at SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

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

CITY OF LAREDO

Defendant - Appellant

v.

PRISCILLA RANGEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF

ANDREA ALDAPE, A MINOR

Plaintiffs - Appellees

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

Trl. Ct. No. 2013-CVT-002103; Appeal from the 341st Judicial District Court,

Webb County, Texas; The Honorable Becky Palomo, Presiding

===============================================================

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

===============================================================

TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:

The Appellant City of Laredo, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule

42.1(a)(1) moves for an order dismissing this appeal and in support would show as follows:

1. On August 26, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing to review the settlement of the

claims of the minor child, Andrea Aldape. At that hearing, the Court approved the settlement

of the claims of the minor child. All claims of the adult Plaintiff and Appellee, Priscilla

Rangel, were also settled and released. The trial court also dismissed the lawsuit with

prejudice.

2. The settlement and the trial court’s dismissal is a final disposition of all of the Parties’

claims, causes of action, debts, demands, obligations, and liabilities, whether claimed in this

lawsuit or claimed on account of it.

ACCEPTED

04-16-00404-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

8/30/2016 11:29:19 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/30/2016 11:29:19 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
3. The Parties have agreed that all attorney's fees, court costs, and all other expenses related to

this lawsuit and appeal shall be paid by the party who incurred the same. 

WHEREFORE, Appellant City of Laredo prays that this appeal be dismissed as authorized

by Rule 42.1(a)(1), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT LÓPEZ

14310 Northbrook Dr., Suite 200

San Antonio, Texas 78232

Telephone: (210) 404-1983

Fax: (210) 404-1990

By: /s/ Albert López

 ALBERT LÓPEZ

 State Bar No. 12562350

 alopezoffice@gmail.com

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 30, 2016, a true and correct copy of this document was served

in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure addressed to: Mr. Reynaldo L. Diaz,

1615 Broadway, San Antonio, Texas 78216.

/s/ Albert López

Albert López
EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS 
PER SHARE
			    Nine Months Ended        Three Months Ended
		       _________________________   _________________________
		      September 30  September 30  September 30  September 30 
			 1997          1996          1997           1996   
								
		   
Net Earnings            $311,698    $364,685     ( $30,490)     $13,521        

Primary earnings 
 per share:

Weighted average 
 number of common 
 shares outstanding    5,793,911   5,774,187     5,797,911    5,776,486    
    
 Add:  Shares arising 
   from the assumed  
   exercise of stock 
   options (as determined  
   under the Treasury 
   Stock Method)                0           0            0               0
			__________________________________________________                         


Weighted average of 
 common and 
 equivalent shares      5,793,911   5,774,187    5,797,911       5,776,486   
			  
 Primary earnings 
  per share                  $.05        $.06    (    $.01)           $.00     
				   
			==================================================

Fully diluted earnings 
 per share:
 
 Weighted average number 
 of common shares 
 outstanding (as 
 determined for the 
 Primary  earnings 
 per share calculation 
 above)                 5,793,911   5,774,187    5,797,911       5,776,486
 
 Add:  Additional shares 
  arising from the 
  assumed  exercise of 
  stock options (as 
  determined under the 
  Treasury Stock Method)   80,580     115,380       90,999         111,112     
			   _______________________________________________   
			   
  Weighted average of 
  common and equivalent 
  shares                5,874,491   5,889,567    5,888,910       5,887,598    
   
   Fully diluted earnings 
    per share                $.05        $.06    (    $.01)           $.00
			==================================================
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRIAN DARNELL BOULWARE, a/k/a Benjamin Leron

Jones,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-91-70, CA-96-44-4)

Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 5, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Darnell Boulware, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Boulware, Nos. CR-91-70; CA-96-44-4 (M.D.N.C. July

23, 1996). 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
<PAGE>   1




                                   EXHIBIT 21

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



The names of the Company's subsidiaries have been omitted pursuant to Item
601(b)(21)(ii) of Regulation S-K because such subsidiaries do not, in the
aggregate, constitute a "significant subsidiary" as of December 28, 1996.
However, the Company has begun to realign its assets into separate operating
entities, which realignment will be completed during the second quarter of the
1997 fiscal year.  As of the date of this Report, one such operation, Chatham
Fabrics, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, had been organized and
commenced operations.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

MAR 2.5 2019

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket Nos. LAKE 2017-224
: LAKE 2017-248
v. : LAKE 2018-146

LAKE 2018-141
NORTHSHORE MINING COMPANY,
ROGER PETERSON, employed by
NORTHSHORE MIINING COMPANY, and
MATTHEW ZIMMER, employed by
NORTHSHORE MINING COMPANY

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW

The petition for discretionary review filed by Northshore Mining Company, et al., is
granted, except as to the issue of whether the Judge erred in finding a violation of 30 C.F.R.

§ 56.11002 and 30 C.F.R. § 56.20011. The petition for discretionary review filed by the
Secretary of Labor is also granted.

fe OPE

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman

Defy dom

Mary Li , Confmigsioner

vag G. wt
seo Bhbhe.

William I. Althen, Commissioner

Aan

Arthur R. Trayiiér II, Commissioner


Distribution:

R. Henry Moore, Esq.

Jackson Kelly PLLC

Three Gateway Center

401 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1500
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Barbara M. Villalobos, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

230 S. Dearborn Street, 8" Floor
Chicago, IL 60604

Andrew R. Tardiff

Office of the Regional Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor

201 12" Street South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Ali A. Beydoun, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor
201 12th St. South-Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA
U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

April Nelson

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor
201 12th St. South-Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Administrative Law Judge Margaret Miller
Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission
721 19th Street, Suite 443

Denver, CO 80202-2536
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 Quarterly Report of Interlink Electronics, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles C. Best, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Charles C. Best    
|Charles C. Best        
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         5,328
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,328
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 79,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          894
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       244
<OTHER-SE>                                     78,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   79,653
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,871
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                 6,507
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   14,440
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.60
        


</TABLE>