alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LEE DAVID COLLINS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; No. 95-7499 DAVID L. BARTLES, Director; ROBERT W. DONLIN, Deputy Regional Administrator, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2426-3-OBD) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Lee David Collins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE, MONTGOMERY, POTTS & MEDLOCK, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Lee David Collins appeals from the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion upon recommendation by a magistrate judge. Although we express no opinion as to the ultimate success of Collins's claims, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings. Collins noted specific, timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be granted. The district court was required to review the disputed issues de novo. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West 1993). Reliance upon the magistrate judge's summary of the record is insufficient in this regard. Thus, the district court was required to review the entire record in the case. See Wimmer v. Cook , 774 F.2d 68, 76 (4th Cir. 1985); Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 48 n.1 (4th Cir. 1982). It is unclear from the district court's order whether a de novo review was indeed conducted. Accordingly, we v acate the decision below and remand for the district court to state that it conducted a de novo review if it previously did, or to review the magistrate judge's report, the objections, and the record under the proper standard if it has not already done so. We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
#### Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Firstenberger.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Firstenberyer,*118 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2008-Ohio-2433.]

(No. 2007-1349

Submitted May 2, 2008

Decided May 9, 2008.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Lester Firstenberger, Attorney Registration No. 0066155, last known business address in Pittsfield, New Hampshire.

{¶2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 18, 2007, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months and one day and conditioned reinstatement on his reinstatement in Massachusetts, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 3} It is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

*1209{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
exv10w2



 





EXHIBIT 10.2




Fiscal Year 2008 BioMeasurement Division Management Bonus Plan

of Hutchinson Technology Incorporated




     We have a fiscal year 2008 management bonus plan that covers an executive officer and certain
other management-level employees of our BioMeasurement Division. The plan is designed to create an
incentive for management of our BioMeasurement Division to achieve goals that our board of
directors believes align with the interests of our long-term shareholders. The plan design
includes an annual corporate financial objective and additional goals that measure progress toward
strategic initiatives. Individual bonus targets, expressed as a percentage of base salary, are
approved for all participants by our board of directors upon the recommendation of the board’s
compensation committee.



     Fifty percent of the bonus target is dependent on our achievement of an annual corporate
financial objective, which is set giving consideration to long-term financial performance to ensure
that the company is growing earnings over time. For fiscal year 2008, earnings before taxes (EBT)
will be the corporate financial objective. The award amount to be paid based on EBT is determined
based on whether actual EBT for the fiscal year is above (subject to a ceiling, above which no
further amounts are awarded) or below (subject to a floor, below which no amounts are awarded) the
pre-established objective for EBT. The remainder of the bonus target is dependent on achievement
of market penetration objectives. As with the corporate financial objective, the award amount to
be paid based on the market penetration objectives is subject to a ceiling (above which no further
amounts are awarded) and a floor (below which no amounts are awarded) in relation to achievement of
pre-established thresholds.



     The decision to pay bonuses is made annually by our board of directors upon the recommendation
of the compensation committee of our board. Bonuses are paid in cash in the first quarter of the
following fiscal year. The actual total bonus amount paid to any participant may not exceed 200%
of the participant’s bonus target, and the actual total bonus amounts paid to all participants
under this plan and under the Company’s Fiscal Year 2008 Disk Drive Components Division Management
Bonus Plan may not exceed 25% of actual EBT for the fiscal year.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1631 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1631

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 20 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to increase the maximum 
amount in controversy permitted for cases under the jurisdiction of the 
   Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court of the 
                         District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Justice Reform 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY PERMITTED FOR CASES 
              UNDER JURISDICTION OF SMALL CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION 
              BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT.

    (a) In General.--Section 11-1321, D.C. Code, is amended by striking 
``$2,000'' and inserting ``$5,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to cases filed with the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1617 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1617

To authorize the establishment on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., 
Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, of a facility 
to provide temporary accommodations for family members of severely ill 
     children being treated at a nearby university medical center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 1993

   Mrs. Collins of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the establishment on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., 
Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, of a facility 
to provide temporary accommodations for family members of severely ill 
     children being treated at a nearby university medical center.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PROPERTY AT 
              EDWARD HINES, JR., DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              HOSPITAL.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may enter into a 
long-term lease or similar agreement with the organization known as The 
Caring Place at Loyola, Inc., a not-for-profit organization operating 
under the laws of the State of Illinois, to permit that organization to 
establish on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., Department of 
Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, a facility to provide 
temporary accommodations for family members of severely ill children 
who are being treated at the Loyola University of Chicago Medical 
Center and other hospitals.
    (b) Conditions.--An agreement under subsection (a) shall ensure 
that there shall be no cost to the United States as a result of the 
property use authorized by that subsection and may permit the use of 
the property without rent.

                                 <all>
```
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-35,102 & 102A] 

                    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C 2273), on March 9, 1999, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, applicable to all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Company, located in Clare, Michigan. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15172).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by the State shows that worker separations occurred at the Lamont Group's sister plant, the Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan. The workers provided support services to the Clare, Michigan plant, and were engaged in employment related to the production of automotive soft trim.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, adversely affected by increased imports. Therefore, the Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the subject firm in Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-35,102 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Clare, Michigan, and workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 1997 through March 9, 2001, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of January, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-3296  Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


   <ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
    

                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Company's  financial  statements for the six months ended June 30, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS                               
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         397
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               397
<PP&E>                                         479
<DEPRECIATION>                                 59
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1203
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1028)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   846
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             48
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (18)
        
<PAGE>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deon Lorenzo LYONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10436.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

Eric Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Deon Lorenzo Lyons, Ayers, MA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Deon Lorenzo Lyons appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lyons contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the sentencing range for offenses involving crack cocaine. However, Amend*235ment 706 did not lower the base offense level for crack offenses that equal or exceed 4.5 kilograms.1*See*U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(l) (2008). Thus, Lyons’ sentence is not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by Section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. On direct appeal, we affirmed Lyons’ sentence based on 8.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. *See United States v. Lyons,*165 F.3d 36 (9th Cir.1998).
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. Phelps Dodge Tyrone, Inc., Docket No. CENT 2006-212-RM.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Phelps Dodge Tyrone, Inc., Docket No. CENT 2006-212-RM.

argument_050208.pdf

fmshrc_050208.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
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
     Number 33-34868 on Form S-8 dated May 11, 1990, in Registration
     Statement Number 33-40975 on Form S-8 dated May 31, 1991, in
     Registration Statement Number 33-47593 on Form S-8 dated May 1, 1992, in
     Registration Statement Number 33-61896 on Form S-8 dated April 29, 1993,
     in Registration Statement Number 33-78258 on Form S-8 dated April 28,
     1994, in Registration Statement Number 33-91294 on Form S-8 dated April
     17, 1995, and in Registration Statement Number 33-02531 on Form S-8
     dated April 16, 1996, of our report dated February 27, 1997, with
     respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Mid
     Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual
     Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                      -----------------
                      Ernst & Young LLP


     Washington, D.C.
     March 24, 1997
#### Stan HUNT, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Appellee.

No. 13-5104.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2014.

Stan Hunt, Dayton, TX, pro se.

Kenneth A. Adebonojo, R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: HENDERSON, BROWN, and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the Clerk’s order to show cause filed October 10, 2013, and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. *See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley,*819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam). Appellant forfeited his Freedom of Information Act claim by failing to address *707it on appeal. *See Doe v. District of Columbia,*98 F.3d 861, 875 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1996). Appellant has not shown any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the adequacy of the search for his missing medical records, so the Department of Veterans Affairs (‘VA”) is entitled to summary judgment on his claim for a violation of the Privacy Act’s access provision. *See Chambers v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,*568 F.3d 998, 1003 (D.C.Cir.2009). Appellant does not allege that he asked the VA to amend any of his records, so he has failed to state a claim for a violation of the Privacy Act’s amendment provision. *See*5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l) (individual may file civil action where agency makes a determination not to amend individual’s record in accordance with his request). The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s Privacy Act claims for damages, because the claims are based on the assertion “that the VA’s failure to maintain accurate and complete records adversely affected [a veteran’s] benefits determinations.” *Thomas v. Principi,*394 F.3d 970, 975 (D.C.Cir.2005); *see also*38 U.S.C. § 511(a); *Price v. United States,*228 F.3d 420 (D.C.Cir.2000) (district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over state law claim whose resolution would require court to decide whether VA acted in bad faith in refusing to reimburse veteran for medical care). Because appellant has not identified any Privacy Act violation, he is not entitled to declaratory relief. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part appellant’s motion for reconsideration. *See Firestone v. Firestone,*76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36(c)(2)(F), this decision will be published because it affirms a decision of the district court upon grounds different from those set forth in the district court’s published opinion. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.