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 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Oak Grove Resource, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Oak Grove Resource, LLC

Oak Grove SE 2009-261-R Meeting Notice 5-26-15.pdf

Oak Grove SE 2009-261-R Meeting Notice 5-26-15.htm

secretary-labor-v-oak-grove-resources-docket-se2009-261-r-etal-11am.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: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Amendment No. 9 To Employment Contract


    Exhibit
      10.4.9

    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 9 TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

    


    AGREED,
      as of the 1st day of June 2006, between the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
      Corporation (FAMC) and Tom D. Stenson (you), that the existing employment
      contract between the parties hereto, dated as of September 1, 1997, as amended
      through Amendment No. 8 to Employment Contract dated as of June 16, 2005
      (collectively, the Agreement), be and hereby is amended as follows:

    


    Sections
      1, 3 (a), 7 (a) (3), and 11 of the Agreement are replaced in their entirety
      with
      the following new sections: 

    


    1.  Term.
      The
      Term of this Agreement shall continue until July 1, 2010 or any earlier
      effective date of termination pursuant to Paragraph 7 hereof (the
“Term”).

    


    3
      (a). Base
      Salary. As of July 1, 2006, you will be paid a base salary (the Base Salary)
      during the Term of Two Hundred Eighty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-One
      Dollars ($282,691) per year, payable in arrears on a bi-weekly
      basis.

    


    7
      (a)
      (3). Farmer
      Mac may terminate your employment without “cause” at any time. Such termination
      shall become effective on the earlier of July 1, 2010, or two years from the
      date of notice of such termination.

    


    11. Notices.
      Any notice given under this Agreement will be sufficient if in writing and
      either: (a) mailed postage prepaid by registered or certified mail, return
      receipt requested; or (b) delivered by hand to, in the case of Farmer Mac,
      1133
      Twenty-First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, attention President or,
      in
      the case of the Employee, 13906 Warm Springs Court, Clifton, VA 20124 (or to
      such other addresses as may be from time to time designated by notice from
      the
      recipient party to the other). Any such notice will be effective upon actual
      receipt or refusal thereof.

    


    As
      amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.

    


    


        Federal
      Agricultural Mortgage Corporation       Employee

    


    


        By:  /s/
      Henry D. Edelman      /s/
      Tom D. Stenson 

     
      President
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

September 29, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 8, 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 hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. Hopkins County Coal, LLC, Docket Nos. KENT 2009-

820-R, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge

erred in concluding that MSHA was authorized to gain access to 

certain personnel records as part of a discrimination investigation 

without obtaining a warrant.)

Any person attending this oral argument 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.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
EXHIBIT
10.1


STATEMENT
REGARDING EXTENSION OF COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 26, 2004
BETWEEN SENOMYX, INC. AND NESTEC, LTD.


At a steering committee meeting on June 9, 2006, the
Company and Nestlé agreed to amend the agreement regarding the discovery and
commercialization of novel flavor ingredients in the coffee and coffee whitener
fields to extend the dates provided in Appendix A to January 25, 2010
(end date for Collaborative Period) and January 26, 2007 (Go/No-Go Decision
Date).



 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vanessa Rose GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50396.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*203Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 29, 2010.

Terri Kay Flynn, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen P. White, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen P. White, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Vanessa Rose Gonzales appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Gonzales contends that the district court erred in finding that she was ineligible for safety valve consideration.

As part of her plea agreement, Gonzales waived her right to appeal the sentence imposed by the court, and she has failed to show that the waiver is invalid. *See United States v. Bibler,*495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir.2007) (“insofar as the district court sentenced appellant to a term of years beneath the maximum allowed by statute, the sentence is not “illegal” and cannot excuse the waiver of appeal”). We therefore enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2015 ME 159 Docket: Fra

- 15

- 290 Submitted

On B riefs : November 19, 2015 Decided: December 3, 2015

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER
, MEAD, JABAR
, and HJELM, JJ.

DAVID S. REARICK

v.

ELENA R. KOHOUT

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Elena R. Kohout appeals from a judgment of the District Court

(Farmington, Dow, J. ) awarding David S. Rearick primary residence and sole

parental rights and responsibilities of the parties’ minor child, and requiring that

Kohout’s contact with the child be supervised

. [¶ 2 ] Contrary to Kohout’s contentions, when viewed in the light most

favo rable to the judgmen t, see Young v. Young , 2015 ME 89, ¶ 2, 1 20 A.3d 106,

the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings and conclusions

regarding the chi ld’s best interests. 19

- A M.R.S. § 1653(3) (2014).

[¶ 3 ] Pursuant to 19

- A M.R.S. § 1653 (2) (D)(4) (2014), h owever, a judgment

awarding paren tal rights and responsibilities must include2

[a] statement that each parent must have access to records and information pertaining to a minor child, including, but not limited to, medical, dental and school records and other information on school activities, whether or not the child resides with the parent, unles s that access is found not to be in the best interest of the child or that access is found to be sought for the purpose of causing detriment to the other parent. If that access is not ordered, the court shall state in the order its reasons for denying tha t access

. As Kohout correctly argues, t he judgment here did not include a statement

regarding the nature and extent of the parties’ access to records
, and we therefore

remand this matter so that the court may supplement the judgment in order to

satisfy th is statutory requirement. W e affirm the judgment in all other respects

. The entry is:

Judgment affirmed . Remanded to the District Court to amend the judgment in conformity with 19

- A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D) (4) (2014)

.

On the briefs :

Elena R. Kohout, appellant pro se

Christopher S. Berryment, Esq., Mexico, for appellee David S. Rearick

Farmington District Court docket number FM

- 2014

- 59
F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32213]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,645]


Texel USA, Inc., Henderson, North Carolina; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    By letter of July 24, 2001, the company requested administrative 
reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, 
applicable to the workers of the subject firm.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
issued on July 2, 2001, based on the finding that imports of nonwoven 
needle punched felts did not contribute importantly to worker 
separations at the Henderson plant. The denial notice was published in 
the Federal Register on July 20, 2001 (66 FR 38026).
    To support the request for reconsideration, the company supplied 
additional information which helped clarify information that was 
provided during the initial investigation. The company indicated they 
shifted subject plant projection to an affiliated plant located in 
Canada and simultaneously began importing nonwoven needle punched felts 
back to the United States to serve their domestic customer base during 
the relevant period. The imports accounted for a meaningful portion of 
the subject plant production.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with those produced at Texel USA, Inc., Henderson, 
North Carolina, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or 
production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the 
subject firm. In accordance with the provision of the Act, I make the 
following certification:

    ``All workers of Texel USA, Inc., Henderson, North Carolina, who 
become totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
January 29, 2000 through two years from the date of this 
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed in Washington, DC this day 11th of December 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-32213 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXHIBIT 21.1


                                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                                          OF
                        ASSOCIATED ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              State of
                             Subsidiary                     Incorporation

          <S>                                                  <C>
          AERC of Indiana, LLC                                 Indiana
          AERC of Michigan, LLC                                  Ohio

          Aspen Lakes - AERC, Inc.                             Michigan
          Associated Estates Realty Corporation
             of Pennsylvania, Inc.                               Ohio
          Cloisters Apartments, Inc.                             Ohio

          Country Place, Inc.                                  Michigan
          Ellet Apartments, Inc.                                 Ohio
          FHM Corporation                                      Michigan

          Gables Indiana, Inc.                                   Ohio
          Gates Mills III Apartments, Inc.                       Ohio

          Gates Mills Club Housing, Inc.                         Ohio
          Hillwood I Apartments, Inc.                            Ohio
          Jennings Commons Apartments, Inc.                      Ohio

          Kensington Apartments, Inc.                            Ohio
          PatCon, Inc.                                           Ohio
          Puritas Place Apartments, Inc.                         Ohio

          Rainbow Terrace Apartments, Inc.                       Ohio
          Riverview Towers Apartments, Inc.                      Ohio
          Shaker Park Gardens II, Inc.                           Ohio

          Somerset West Apartments, Inc.                         Ohio
          State Road Apartments, Inc.                            Ohio
          Statesman II Apartments, Inc.                          Ohio

          Sutliff Apartments, Inc.                               Ohio
          Tallmadge Acres Apartments, Inc.                       Ohio

          The Oaks at the Woods Company, Inc.                    Ohio
          Treetop Village, Inc.                                  Ohio
          Twinsburg Apartments, Inc.                             Ohio

          Village Tower Apartments, Inc.                         Ohio
          West High Apartments, Inc.                             Ohio
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,129)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,674
<PP&E>                                          23,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,346)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           208
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,017
<SALES>                                        160,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,413
<CGS>                                           47,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,761
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Bruce NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-14861.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2010.

*228Patrick J. Ballard, Ballard Law Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Meir Feder, Jones Day, New York, NY, James H. Hall, Jones Day, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and MOODY,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. In the proceedings below, the plaintiff admitted that American Express charged off his accounts, meaning that Ex-perian’s reporting of these charge-offs was not inaccurate. Plaintiff argues on appeal that his admission should not be binding because the “totality” of his Complaint and his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment shows that his true position is that American Express did not charge off the accounts but instead falsely reported that it did so. Plaintiff further argues that American Express did not actually charge off the accounts because, by doing so, it would have violated its own policies as well as federal law and regulations. We conclude that plaintiff is incorrect on both points. It was not error for the district court to hold the plaintiff to the admissions he made through his pleadings, and plaintiffs evidence shows at best that American Express should not have charged off the accounts, not that it did not. Since plaintiff has presented no substantial evidence that Experian issued an inaccurate credit report, neither his claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act nor his state law claims can survive summary judgment.

In the alternative, plaintiff might have argued that Experian’s reporting was inaccurate because he presented evidence that American Express should not have charged off the accounts, even if it did. We do not reach the question of whether this theory is viable, however, because plaintiff has faded to make the argument. An appellant’s brief must include an argument containing “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). In this Circuit, “a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.” *Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 385 F.3d*1324, 1330 (11th Cir.2004). Because Nelson does not squarely argue in his brief that Experian’s reporting should be considered inaccurate *229on the grounds that American Express should not have charged off the accounts, this contention has been waived.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STEVEN KELLER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-635

 5D17-639

OLIN RAMSEYER o/b/o A.R. 

and B.R., MINORS,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 9, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

Kenneth Friedland, Judge.

Patrick M. Megaro, Robert L. Hughes and 

Joseph G. Easton, of Halscott Megaro, 

P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

David A. Baker and Mark A. Cavins, of The 

Law Office of David A. Baker, P.A., 

Rockledge, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Appellant (the stepfather of the alleged minor victims) 

challenges final judgments of injunction for protection against sexual violence filed by 

Appellee (the father of the alleged minor victims). Although the children denied the 

allegations during the videotaped interview with the Child Protection Team and there were 
2

no eyewitnesses to the alleged abuse, the trial judge granted the injunction primarily 

based on Appellee’s testimony about what his children allegedly told him. Appellant’s 

threshold claim of error relates to the admissibility of this testimony under section 

90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2017). We need not address this evidentiary issue here 

because we conclude that Appellant’s other claim of error based on section 

784.046(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), is dispositive. In this case, there were no 

eyewitnesses, affidavits from eyewitnesses, or direct physical evidence of the alleged 

abuse to support the allegations. Accordingly, there was a lack of substantial, competent 

evidence to support the injunction. See T.B. v. R.B. (In re A.B.), 186 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2015) (holding that mother failed to meet requirements of section 784.046(4)(a) for 

obtaining injunction against father where she was not eyewitness to alleged acts and 

failed to introduce physical evidence or affidavit from eyewitness to alleged acts). The 

final judgments are reversed.

REVERSED.

TORPY, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.