alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   FY2018 Justification               

#   FY2018 Justification 

##           Downloads        

FMSHRC FY 2018 CBJ.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
Form 3903

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service (99) 

Moving Expenses 

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form3903 for instructions and the latest information.

▶ Attach to Form 1040, 1040-SR, or 1040-NR. 

OMB No. 1545-0074 

2019

Attachment 

Sequence No. 170 

Name(s) shown on return Your social security number 

Before you begin: You can deduct moving expenses only if you are a Member of the Armed Forces and meet certain other 

requirements. See the instructions to find out if you qualify.

1 Transportation and storage of household goods and personal effects (see instructions) . . . . . 1 

2 Travel (including lodging) from your old home to your new home (see instructions). Do not include the

cost of meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

3 Add lines 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

4 Enter the total amount the government paid you for the expenses listed on lines 1 and 2 that is not 

included in box 1 of your Form W-2 (wages). This amount should be shown in box 12 of your Form

W-2 with code P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

5 Is line 3 more than line 4? 

No. You cannot deduct your moving expenses. If line 3 is less than line 4, subtract line 3 from

line 4 and include the result on Form 1040 or 1040-SR, line 1; or Form 1040-NR, line 8. 

Yes. Subtract line 4 from line 3. Enter the result here and on Schedule 1 (Form 1040 or 

1040-SR), line 13; or Form 1040-NR, line 26. This is your moving expense deduction . . 5 

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see your tax return instructions. Cat. No. 12490K Form 3903 (2019)
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. RP96-383-019]

Take notice that on January 31, 2001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 1400, with an effective date of February 1, 2001.

DTI states that the tariff sheet disclosing a recently negotiated transaction. DTI states that the tariff sheet relates to a specific negotiated rate transaction between DTI and Sithe Power Marketing, LP. The transaction provides Sithe Power Marketing, LP with FT service and conforms to the forms of service agreement contained in DTI's tariff. The term of the agreement is February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002.

DTI states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures have been served upon DTI's 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 in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 filing 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. 01-3450  Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000911317
<NAME> LAS VEGAS AIRLINES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,937
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,937)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (858,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (217,106)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   819,914
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .19


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

h0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145092 & (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145092

COA: 308451

Calhoun CC: 2011-000135-FC

TYRONE DUVAL LUSTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is 

DENIED.
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

May29, 2017

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Thursday, June15,2017

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillconsiderandactuponthefollowinginopen

session:*Secretary****ofLaborv.LehighAnthraciteCoal,LLC,*etal.,DocketNos.PENN2014-108,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerred in concludingthatsendingaminerintothepitinquestionconstituted“highnegligence”ratherthanrecklessdisregard.”)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthismeetingwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.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 forTDD

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

 

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

MEETING:                             1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode:678-100

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

s0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144662 & (11)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144662

COA: 307264 

Mecosta CC: 10-006998-FC

CLIFFORD LEE CRYSLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3708]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Hearing and Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee 
on Rules of Criminal Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open hearing and meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The hearing and meeting will be open to public observation but 
not participation. The hearing will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon 
on April 25. The meeting will be held from 1:00 p.m. on April 25 to 
5:00 p.m. on April 27.

DATES: April 25-27, 2001.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Judicial 
Conference Center, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: February 8, 2001.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 01-3708 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00005-CV

____________

IN RE DAVID CARL WORMINGTON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2004-20973

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On January 5, 2012, relator David Carl Wormington filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In 

his petition, relator complains that respondent, the presiding judge of the 247th District 

Court in Harris County, has not ruled on motions and pleading that were properly filed. 

Specifically, relator complains that there has been no ruling on a motion for 

contempt filed August 19, 2011, or a bill of review filed September 28, 2011. He also 

asserts that he filed motions requesting hearings on both the contempt motion and the bill 

of review. On October 25, 2011, relator filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis in 
2

response to a notice from the Harris County District Clerk that filing fees were owed. 

Relator complains that he has received no further notification concerning his pending 

pleadings, and he asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to 

timely adjudicate his contempt motion and bill of review.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate 

remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). 

It is relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. 

See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable 

procedural rules. In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, 

orig. proceeding). Chief among the requirements in seeking mandamus relief is the 

critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.

Id.; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).

Relator has not provided this court with copies of the motions and pleadings about 

which he complains. Therefore, relator has not met his burden to establish his entitlement 

to relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Jamison and McCally.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1834 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1834

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession of a 
   handgun or ammunition by, or the private transfer of a handgun or 
                        ammunition to, a minor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 1993

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession of a 
   handgun or ammunition by, or the private transfer of a handgun or 
                        ammunition to, a minor.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN OR 
              AMMUNITION BY, OR THE PRIVATE TRANSFER OF A HANDGUN OR 
              AMMUNITION TO, A MINOR.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(s)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, 
or otherwise transfer a handgun or ammunition to a minor.
    ``(B) It shall be unlawful for any minor to possess or receive a 
handgun or ammunition.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer of a handgun or 
ammunition to, or the possession or receipt of a handgun or ammunition 
by, a minor who is engaged in a lawful sporting activity under the 
supervision of a person who is not prohibited by Federal law, or by the 
law of the State in which the activity occurs, from receiving a firearm 
or ammunition, unless the minor fails to return the handgun or 
ammunition to the transferor at the end of the activity.
    ``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `minor' means an 
individual who has not attained 18 years of age.''.
    (b) Handgun Defined.--Section 921(a) of such title is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(29) The term `handgun' means--
            ``(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to 
        be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
            ``(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm 
        described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.''.
    (c) Penalty.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2) or (3) 
        of''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(5) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(s) shall be fined not 
more than $1,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.''.

                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIANHO LUI,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 70619

Agency No. A213

- 375

- 391

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 19, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jianho Lui 1 , a native and citizen of China , petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigrat ion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 Petitioner’s filings indicate that he spells his name “ Liu. ” 

# FILED

JAN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 70619

rescind his in absentia removal order . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for abuse of discretion the den ial of a motion to reopen

. Celis

–

Castellano v. Ashcroft , 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002). We grant and remand

the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Lui’s motion to reopen where it

failed to properly consider the totality of the circumstance s in determining whether

Lui has established exceptional circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i),

(e)(1) ; Hernandez

- Galand v. Garland , 996 F.3d 1030, 1034

- 35 ( 9th Cir. 2021) (“In

considering the totality of the circumstances, the BIA must first consider whether

‘ petitioners did all they reasonably could to have their cases heard promptly, ’ and

whether ‘ through no fault of their own, [petitioners] have never had their day in

court to present their claim

, ’ ” in addition to other relevant considerations. )

(citations omitted) . In addition, it appears the BIA did not properly credit Lui’s

declaration. See Celis

- Castellano , 298 F.3d at 892 (“[T]he Board must accept th e

facts in an alien ’ s affidavit as true unless inherently unbelievable.”)

. Thus, we

grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings

consistent with this disposition.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lui ’s remaining contentions. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are

not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach)

.3 21

- 70619

The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is granted. Lui’s

removal is st ayed pending a decision by the BIA.

The parties must bear the ir own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 11

                        SHOWPOWER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                        (In Thousands, Except Share Data)


                                                           Three Months
                                                          Ended March 31,
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      1999               1998
                                                  -----------        -----------
Net (loss) income                                 $      (748)       $        85

Weighted average
    shares outstanding                              3,293,075          1,913,080

Dilutive effect after application
    of treasury stock method

    Restricted shares                                       -            105,048
    Employee stock options                                  -                  -

Shares used in calculating
    diluted income per share                        3,293,075          2,018,128

Basic net (loss) income per share                 $     (0.23)       $      0.04

Diluted net (loss) income per share               $     (0.23)       $      0.04