alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

          CERTIFICATIONS 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 Right Management Consultants, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending 31 December 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles J. Mallon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   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.

Dated: March 31, 2003                            /s/ CHARLES J. MALLON
                                                 ---------------------
                                                       Charles J. Mallon
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
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 
-                   Performance Accountability Report for the years ending September 30, 2010 and 2009              

#   Performance Accountability Report for the years ending September 30, 2010 and 2009

##           Downloads        

par10.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
#### Marcos C. GUILLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCHA, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-17308.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Marcos C. Guillen, San Diego, CA, pro se.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Marcos C. Guillen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We vacate and remand.

The district court determined at screening that Guillen did not properly exhaust administrative remedies because he stated in his complaint that he did not appeal his grievances to the highest level of administrative review. However, Guillen contends that prison officials improperly screened *192his grievances, preventing him from appealing to the highest level. We recently clarified that improper screening of an inmate’s grievances renders administrative remedies “effectively unavailable” such that exhaustion is not required under the PLRA. *Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 826-27 (9th Cir.2010). Moreover, defendants bear the burden of raising and proving failure to exhaust administrative remedies. *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore cannot say at this early juncture that Guillen failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies. *See id.*at 1120 (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal, so long as no exception to exhaustion applies.”).

Guillen shall bear his own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
V 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 371 

For the relief of Robert Feiss. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2021 

Ms. BROWNLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Robert Feiss. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT. 

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 

6 sum of $39,709.66 to Robert Feiss of Ojai, California, in 

7 compensation for payments he was entitled to but did not 

8 receive for years 2011 through 2013 under the Primary 

9 Care Incentive Payment Program established under sec10 tion 1833(x) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

11 1395l(x)) and in consideration of the fact— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 371 IH

1 (1) that Robert Feiss has served as an out2 spoken advocate for the health care needs of his pa3 tients through his work as a primary care physician; 

4 and 

5 (2) that, on May 30, 2018, the United States 

6 Court of Federal Claims found that ‘‘It appears 

7 that, through no fault of his own, plaintiff has lost 

8 over $39,000 in government Medicare incentive pay9 ments that he was entitled to by providing Family 

10 Practice services’’ and that ‘‘the evidence strongly 

11 supports plaintiff’s argument that he was providing 

12 Family Practice services and should have been clas13 sified as such, but a coding error denied plaintiff 

14 this status for several years’’. 

15 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM. 

16 The sum paid under section 1 shall be in full satisfac17 tion of any claims that Robert Feiss may have against 

18 the United States arising on the basis of payments owed 

19 for years 2011 through 2013 under the Primary Care In20 centive Payment Program described in section 1(1)(B). 

21 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY FEES. 

22 Not more than 10 percent of the sum paid under sec23 tion 1 shall be paid to or received by any agent or attorney 

24 for services rendered in connection with the recovery of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 371 IH

1 such sum. Any person who violates this section shall be 

2 fined under title 18, United States Code. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Robert Jeffry FEIGER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roderick Q. HICKMAN and Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General,* Respondents—Appellees.

No. 08-56495.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.**

Filed Dec. 15, 2010.

Steven Alan Feldman, Feldman & Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Robert Jeffry Feiger, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Attorney General for the State of California, Esquire, Douglas P. Danzig, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 Edmund G. Brown Jr., is substituted for his predecessor, Bill Lockyer, as Attorney General of California. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

The district court did not err in denying Feiger’s petition and his demand for an *154evidentiary hearing, because Feiger did not allege facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief under AEDPA. *Townsend v. Sain,*372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), *overruled in part on other grounds by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes,*504 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992); *West v. Ryan,*608 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir.2010). Specifically, Feiger failed to identify any clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding that inferences jurors draw from testimony by trial witnesses are within the class of “extraneous” influences that necessitate an evidentiary hearing or reversal of a conviction. *See Tanner v. United States,*483 U.S. 107, 117-18, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); *Remmer v. United States,*347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954). For the same reason, the state court’s determination that Feiger was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Further, “[cjlearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, does not require state or federal courts to hold a hearing every time a claim of juror bias is raised.” *Tracey v. Palmateer,*341 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Mohamed RAJAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 09-5146-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 4, 2011.

*548Kai W. De Graaf, Law Offices of Kai W. De Graaf, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

R. Alexander Goring (Tony West and Michelle G. Latour, on brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Present DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, and ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

The Petitioner, Mohamed Rajah, petitions this Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion for a continuance in his removal proceedings due to a pending labor certification application (which, if granted, would entitle him to apply for a change of status to legal permanent resident). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

This Court has jurisdiction to review decisions by the BIA to grant or deny continuances. *Sanusi v. Gonzales,*445 F.3d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam). We review the BIA’s decision to deny a continuance for abuse of discretion. *Id.*at 199.

The basis of Rajah’s motion for a continuance has been his pending labor certification application. Between our prior decision in this case (remanding to the BIA for reconsideration of his motion), *Rajah v. Mukasey,*544 F.3d 449 (2d Cir.2008), and the BIA’s reconsideration of Rajah’s motion, Rajah’s labor certification application was approved. However, his resulting labor certification then expired. As a result, Rajah no longer has a labor certification application pending before the Department of Labor. Therefore, his petition is moot, and we must dismiss it. See *Kamagate v. Ashcroft,*385 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir.2004) (“A case becomes moot, if, at any stage of the proceeding, it fails to satisfy the ease- or-controversy requirement of Article III....”).

We hereby DISMISS Rajah’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for a continuance and its affirmance of an order of removal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                       285
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,069
<PP&E>                                         152,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,957
<BONDS>                                         64,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   134
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,889
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,889
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-144885, 333-116799,
333-105398, 333-105397, 333-103556, 333-65332, 333-52140, 333-59433, and 333-161771 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-161770 on Form S-3 of our report relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement
schedule of Georgia Gulf Corporation dated March 11, 2010, August 16, 2010 as to the effects of the restatement described in Note 22 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement described in Note 22), and our report relating to the effectiveness of Georgia Gulf Corporation's internal control over
financial reporting dated March 11, 2010, August 16, 2010 as to the effects of the material weakness identified in our report (which report expresses an adverse opinion on internal
control over financial reporting), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Georgia Gulf Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta,
Georgia

August 16,
2010

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3861] 

# Department:

United States Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*], Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition, “Cosme Tura: Painting and Design in Renaissance Ferrara” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, Massachusetts, from on or about January 30, 2002, to on or about May 12, 2002, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: December 19, 2001. 

Patricia S. Harrison, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 01-31810 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
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, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul D. Meyer, 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/ Paul D. Meyer      
|Paul D. Meyer          
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2004
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO****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 June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, E. Michael Thoben, III, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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 section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)        The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                                                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ E. MICHAEL THOBEN,III                                                                                                                    |   |   |        |
|                                                                                                                                              |   |   |   |
| **E. Michael Thoben, III****Chairman** **President** **and** **Chief** **Executive** **Officer****August 14, 2003** |   |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FY 2015 Budget Request Summary

Dollars in thousands

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Enacted

FY 2015

Request

Budget Authority $16,683 $16,423 $17,061

FTE 74 76 79

The Commission is requesting a budget of $17,061,000 for FY 2015 to support the fulltime equivalent (FTE) of 79 staff members. This budget level is $638,000 and 3 FTE 

above the FY 2014 enacted level. This request also reflects a one-percent pay increase

for civilian employees, an adjustment to the rent costs for the agency headquarters, and 

funding for three additional counsels in the Office of the Chairman and Commissioners.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

March 9, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 17, 2015

 

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 consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Paramont Coal Company Virginia, LLC,*Docket Nos. VA 2010-369-R,et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in rulingthat a particular violation of the standard governing conveyor belt alignmentwas not “significant and substantial.”)

 

 

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:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                EmogeneJohnson

                                                AdministrativeAssistant