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

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

April 17, 2017

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 11, 2017

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Mach Mining, LLC., Docket No. 

LAKE 2014-746. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in 

upholding citations for coal accumulations, designations that the 

violations were “significant and substantial,” and designations that 

the violations resulted from high negligence.)

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

ARGUMENT: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 129-339

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Harris County Self

- Insured v. Levent Dogan

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 01006

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 14504

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

The motion for en banc reconsideration filed by appellee Levent Dogan on September 16,

2021 is denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Peter Kelly

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consi s ts of Chief Jus tice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightowe r,

Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: ___ October 7, 2021

___
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

January 27, 2016

t0120 

# Order

Clerk January 27, 2016

152104

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152104

COA: 326999

Wayne CC: 14

- 010291

- FH

CALVIN A. AUSTIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2015 order

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harvey Lee HAYES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7495.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2011.

Harvey Lee Hayes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant *759United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harvey Lee Hayes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Belinger, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-3193.]

C LEVELAND M ETROPOLITAN B AR A SSOCIATION v . B ELINGER . [Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Belinger, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-3193.] (No. 2015-0292

— Submitted May 25, 2016

— Decided May 27, 2016.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further c onsideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by responde nt, Robert James Belinger, Attorney Registration No. 0017661, last known busine ss address in Independence, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 28, 2015, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year with six months stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has subs tantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this cour t that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Ohio. {¶ 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(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Anthony SAENZ, also known as Daniel, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-40757

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 2014.

Michelle Suzanne Englade, Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory L. Ahlgren, Esq., Ahlgren Law Firm, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent John Anthony Saenz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Saenz has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Saenz’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our decision not to address Saenz’s ineffective assistance claims is without prejudice to Saenz’s right to assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

To the extent Saenz challenges his plea as involuntary, there is no evidence in the record to support this claim. At his plea colloquy, Saenz swore before the district court that he understood the charges against him and the potential sentence he faced, he was satisfied with counsel’s representation, his plea was voluntary, his plea was not the result of force or threats, he had an opportunity to read and discussed the plea agreement with counsel, he signed the plea agreement with an understanding of its contents, and he understood the summary of the plea agreement recited by the government. Saenz’s “[sjolemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” *See Blackledge v.*
      *253
      *Allison,*431 U.S. 63, 73-74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Saenz has not pointed to any evidence in the record to overcome this presumption.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Saenz’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the. limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1355-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma, (FEMA-1355-DR), dated January 5, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 2, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 5, 2001: 

Blaine, Canadian, Custer, Garfield, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Logan, Mayes, Osage, Payne, Pawnee, Roger Mills and Tillman for Public Assistance. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

Robert J. Adamcik, 

Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-4136 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718-01-U
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements filed with the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         298,396
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               895,053
<PP&E>                                      31,276,251
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,758,340)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,412,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          547,708
<BONDS>                                     19,740,754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,124,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,412,964
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               926,584
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  443,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               222,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             379,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (119,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (119,028)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND 
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000829987     
<NAME>                        COPLEY PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,974
<SECURITIES>                                   19,465
<RECEIVABLES>                                  34,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (500)
<INVENTORY>                                    28,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,817
<PP&E>                                         74,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (29,619)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,513
<BONDS>                                        4,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       254
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,473
<SALES>                                        62,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               62,935
<CGS>                                          48,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  48,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,248
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,530
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .16
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Directions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I
Timothy Gaylord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|      |                   |  |  |     |  |                                        
|----- | ----------------- |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: | November 12, 2002 |  |  | /s/ |  | Timothy Gaylord                        
|      |                   |  |  |     |  | Timothy Gaylord
Chief Executive Officer

20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,966
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   426
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    217,738
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,998
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,055
<LOANS>                                        231,133
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,309
<DEPOSITS>                                     348,171
<SHORT-TERM>                                    21,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,580
<LONG-TERM>                                     62,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,808
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 464,309
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,475
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,759
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   112
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                35,346
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,962
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,611
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,735
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,135
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,084
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,707
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.20
<LOANS-NON>                                        228
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,564
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   899
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,200
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,400
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (468)
<RECOVERIES>                                        33
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,100
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,100
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
FILED 

FEB I 2 2009 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

NANGY MAYER WHITTINGTON CLERK 

U.S. DISTR'/&T COURT' 

JOSEPH KINARD, 

Petitioner, 

v. Civil Action No. 09 0282 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed informa 

pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner challenges his conviction in and the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia. Challenges of this nature must be brought by motion in the Superior 

Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. In relevant part D.C. Code § 23-110 provides: 

[An] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner 

who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this 

section shall not be entertained by ... any Federal .. , court if it 

appears '" that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it 

also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention. 

D.C. Code § 23-110(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it 

is coextensive with habeas corpus." Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992). It is 

settled that "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless 

the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention'" Byrd v. 

Henderson, 119 F.3d 34,36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay, 

1 
794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). A prisoner's lack of success in 

his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence by means of a motion 

under D.C. Code § 23-11 O(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Wilson 

v. Office of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995). 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent 

with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date. 

Date: ~' ~;}/ ~ ~ 

2
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ivm/