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

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 18, 2020

 

PLACE:                                  Thismeeting will be conducted through a videoconference involving allCommissioners. Any person wishing to listen to the proceedings may call thephone number listed below.

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                      TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Scott and Thomas, employed by Mill Branch Coal Corp.,*Docket**No. VA 2018-103 (Issues include whether the Judge erred by dismissing civilpenalty proceedings involving individuals because he determined that theproposed penalty assessments were filed too late.)

 

 

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.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)236-7472

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

 

Dated: June 4, 2020

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel

 

BillingCode 6735-01
#### Anthony W. HORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen BAILEY, Police Officer; Richard M. Jackson, Police Officer; David M. Cooper, Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7018.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2011.

Anthony W. Horne, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Horne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Horne v. Bailey,*No. 1:10-cv-00641-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. June 25, 2010). We deny Horne’s motion for a certificate of appealability. 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.*
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40403 

Summary Calendar

__________________

SAMUEL JOHN MAJOR DAVIS, JR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION,

 Respondent-Appellee,

and

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

 

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-312

- - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 1995

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel John Major Davis, Jr., appeals from the district

court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Davis argues that the Parole Commission violated its guidelines

in delaying his parole hearings and in calculating his guideline

range. He also argues that the district court erred in failing
No. 95-40403

-2-

to require the respondent to respond to all his claims and in

determining that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4205 and 4206 were not implicitly

repealed by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the

reasons given by the district court. Davis v. United States

Parole Commission, No. C-94-312 (S.D. Tex. April 18, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23


                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
GST Telecommunications, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-94072, 333-07237 and 333-53981) on Form S-8, (Nos. 33-95324,
33-94096, 333-1538 and 333-76405) on Form F-3, and (Nos. 333-15699,
333-16141, 333-32137, 333-21729, 333-19339, 333-45013 and 333-52437) on
Form S-3 of GST Telecommunications, Inc. of our report dated March 17, 2000
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of GST Telecommunications, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' deficit, and
cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31,
1999, the three-month period ended December 31, 1997 and the year ended
September 30, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 Form 10K of
GST Telecommunications, Inc.


                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


Portland, Oregon
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

Marilyn Hawker, Inc., an Arizona corporation
NC Cash Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NC Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NovaCare (Arizona), Inc., an Arizona corporation
NovaCare (Colorado), Inc., a Delaware corporation
NovaCare (Texas), Inc., a Texas corporation
NovaCare Easton & Moran Physical Therapy, Inc., a California corporation
NovaCare Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NovaCare Management Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NovaCare Management Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Amarillo, Inc., a Texas corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Beaumont, Inc., a Texas corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of El Paso, Inc., a Texas corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Las Vegas, Inc., a Nevada corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Lubbock, Inc., a Texas corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Northern California, Inc., a California corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Oklahoma, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Oregon, Inc., an  Oregon corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Reno, Inc., a Nevada corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of San Antonio, Inc., a Texas corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of San Diego, Inc., a California corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Southern California, Inc., a California corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Washington, Inc., a Washington corporation
NovaCare Rehab Agency of Wyoming, Inc., a Wyoming corporation
SG Rehabilitation Agency, Inc, a Pennsylvania corporation
SG Speech Associates, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-218-000]

Take notice that on January 31, 2001, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing a report that compares its cash-out revenues with cash-out costs for the annual billing period November 1, 1999 through October 31, 2000.

Texas Gas states that the filing is being made in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's December 16, 1993, “Order on Third Compliance filing and Second Order on Rehearing” in Docket Nos. RS92-24, et al. There is no rate impact to customers as a result of this filing.

Texas Gas states that copies of this filing have been served upon all of Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before                           ( print page 9833)                        February 13, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filling may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-3432  Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00284

- CV

IWR Operating, LLC

v. Sunbreaker Services, LLC

On a ppeal from the 135th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15

- 7

- 14933

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Octobe r 6, 2016.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memo randum Opinion filed

February 5 , 2015.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 14
- 00898
- CV

HARRIS COUNTY HOSPIT AL DISTRICT , Appellant
V. SOLOMON NWOKO , Appellee
On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013
- 27950


### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an accelerated appeal from a n order signed October 17, 2014. O n February 2, 2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the case has settled

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Brown.
#### John Fitzgerald BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. THOMAS SUPPLY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-1879.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 18, 2011.

John Fitzgerald Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Edward Justice, Jr., Joseph Jakob Kennedy, Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Fitzgerald Brown appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in Brown’s Title VII action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Brown v. Thomas Supply Co., Inc.,*No. *7632:08-cv-03124-CWH, 2010 WL 2640498 (D.S.C. July 2, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 10.1


Rentrak Corporation


Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee
Directors


Each
non-employee director of Rentrak Corporation (“Rentrak”) receives an annual
retainer of $30,000.  In addition, the
chair of the Compensation Committee receives a $3,000 annual retainer, the
chair of the Audit Committee receives a $5,000 annual retainer, and each other
non-employee director who serves on the Audit Committee receives a $2,500
annual retainer.  Non-employee directors
are also paid $1,200 for each board or committee meeting they attend in person
or by telephone conference call.  Rentrak
also reimburses directors for their travel expenses for each meeting attended
in person.


In
accordance with the provisions of Rentrak’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan approved
by the shareholders at the 2005 annual meeting, the Board of Directors approved
the award of 9,000 deferred stock units (“DSUs”) to each non-employee director
on June 15, 2006.  The DSUs represent the
right to receive an equal number of shares of Rentrak’s Common Stock pursuant
to the terms and conditions of the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan on a deferred
basis in compliance with the terms of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code, as amended.  The awards of DSUs
will vest in full on June 15, 2007, provided that the recipient continues to be
a non-employee director on that date, and provided further that the DSUs will
fully vest upon termination of the recipient’s service on the Board due to
death or disability or a change in control of Rentrak before that date.  The awards of DSUs will be payable following
the recipient’s ceasing to be a director of Rentrak.


The
Board also approved annual grants of 9,000 DSUs to each non-employee director
each April 1 (beginning in 2007) on terms comparable to those described above.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1225** 

FRED HENDERSON MOORE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, and its agents and servants , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 02148

- DCN )

Submitted : June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published p er curiam opinion

. Fred Henderson Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Rae Fargnoli, CLAWSON & STAUBES, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Fred Henderson Moore se eks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and remanding his case to state court . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty da ys after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow l e s v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on February 3, 2011 . The notice of appeal was filed on March 10, 2011. Because Moore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Edward LEDKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12005

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2010.

Steven E. Butler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Donna Barrow Dobbins, George F. May, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eugene Seidel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Deborah A. Griffin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mobile, AL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Robert A. Ratliff, Robert A. Ratliff, P.C., Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Ratliff, appointed counsel for Joshua Edward Ledkins in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Ledkins and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguably meritorious issues, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ledkins’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB  of
NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, I, Kristi
J.  Kampmann,  Chief  Financial Officer of NanoPierce Technologies, Inc., hereby
certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  to  my  knowledge,  that:

     a)   such  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of NanoPierce Technologies, Inc.
          for  the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2004, fully complies with the
          requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of  1934;  and

     b)   the  information  contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
          NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2004,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results  of  operations  of  NanoPierce  Technologies,  Inc.




                                           /s/ Kristi J. Kampmann
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Kristi J. Kampmann,
                                             Chief Financial Officer


Date:   February 11, 2005



          A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906
          has  been  provided  to  NanoPierce  Technologies,  Inc.  and  will be
          retained  by  NanoPierce  Technologies,  Inc.  and  furnished  to  the
          Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.


<PAGE>
#### HALL *&*BRISCOE, Inc., v. STATE et al.

No. 23143.

Feb. 26, 1935.

George M. Nicholson, for plaintiff in error.

Ralph Thompson and Edwin Dabney, Pro-ration Atty., for defendants in error.

*619PHELPS, J.

The proration umpire filed a complaint against Hall & Briscoe, Inc., charging violations of orders of the Commission, No. 5413 and No. 5414, in that said company allowed its oil well in the Oklahoma City field to overproduce on January 3, 5, 7, and 9, 1931, contrary to the provisions of said orders. Separate affidavits and complaints were lodged as to each day on which the well was allowed to overproduce, hut by stipulation the parties tried the instant cause and agreed that the entire four causes should be controlled before the Commission and in the Supreme Court by the order and judgment finally prevailing in this cause. The Corporation Commission found the defendant guilty and assessed a fine of $200; accordingly the same fine applies to each of the other causes, resulting in a-total fine of $800.

Among other things urged by appellant, it is insisted that the orders of the Commission made for the period in question are void, since they were made without notice.

A stipulation filed in this court by the parties hereto is to the effect that the issues of law and fact in this case are identical with those in the case of H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Walker et al., 169 Okla. 33, 35 P. (2d) 893, which opinion was filed September 11, 1934, subsequent to the filing of the appeal and briefs herein. It is further stipulated that the decision in that case is governing in this case.

Therefore, upon the authority /of said case, the orders of the Corporation Commission in its causes Nos. 10528, 10529, 10530, and 10531, fining the appellant $200 in each of said causes, are vacated and remanded, with directions to dismiss the same.

McNEILL, C. J., and RILEY, BUSBY, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21
 Subsidiaries of Mobile Mini, Inc.
 Jurisdiction of
    
    
    
    PercentName
of Subsidiary
    

Incorporation/Formation
    

Parent
    

OwnershipMobile Storage Group, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini I, Inc.
    
    Arizona
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini Dealer, Inc.
    
    Arizona
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini, LLC
    
    California
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %A Royal Wolf Portable Storage,
Inc.
    
    California
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini UK Holdings Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini Holding, B.V
    
    The Netherlands
    
    Mobile Mini, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %MSG Investments, Inc.
    
    California
    
    Mobile Storage Group, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Storage UK Finance LP
    
    United Kingdom
    
    MSG Investments, Inc.
    
    
    99
    %Mobile Storage Group, Inc.
    
    
    1
    %Mobile Storage Group L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Mobile Storage Group, Inc.
    
    
    99
    %MSG Investments, Inc.
    
    
    1
    %LIKO Luxembourg International S.a.r.l.
    
    Luxembourg
    
    Mobile Storage UK Finance LP
    
    
    100
    %Temporary Mobile Storage, Inc.
    
    California
    
    A Royal Wolf Portable Storage, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini B.V
    
    The Netherlands
    
    Mobile Mini Holding, B.V.
    
    
    100
    %Ravenstock MSG Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    Mobile Mini UK Holdings Limited
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Storage (UK) Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    Ravenstock MSG Limited
    
    
    100
    %Ravenstock Tam Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    Ravenstock MSG Limited
    
    
    100
    %Mobile Mini UK, Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
    
    Mobile Mini UK Holdings Limited
    
    
    100
    %Box Lease Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    Mobile Mini UK, Ltd.
    
    
    100
    %
 95