alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYMBOLLON CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS FILED IN THE FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000912086
<NAME>                        Symbollon Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         2,527,865
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     24,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       73,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,701,622
<PP&E>                                           263,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                   116,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,004,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             70,603
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            500,000
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           2,916
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,433,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,004,011
<SALES>                                          376,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,697,349
<CGS>                                            178,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    178,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 562,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                16,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  511,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              511,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     511,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .22




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elvis Eden CASTRO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40851

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*377Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Elvis Eden Castro-Rodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS
          SUMMARY FINANCIAL
          INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
          BALANCE SHEETS AND
          CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
          OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES
          1, 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S
          FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-
          DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
          ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
          SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                            160,708
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,126,501
<ALLOWANCES>                      143,632
<INVENTORY>                     3,321,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                5,959,529
<PP&E>                          4,527,937
<DEPRECIATION>                  2,001,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  8,936,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,582,444
<BONDS>                         1,876,614
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           55,306
<OTHER-SE>                      2,421,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    8,936,125
<SALES>                         3,812,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,812,848
<CGS>                           3,053,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   3,053,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  636,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 95,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    52,827 
<INCOME-TAX>                            0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                52,827 
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       52,827 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .01 
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .01 
        

</TABLE>
#### Harry C. PIPER, III, Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Appellees.

No. 06-5119.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Feb. 23, 2007.

Daniel S. Alcorn, Law Office of Daniel S. Alcorn, Great Falls, VA, for Appellant.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Appellate, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before: SENTELLE, RANDOLPH and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was briefed and argued by counsel. It is

Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinions filed April 12, 2006 and December 1, 2003. *See Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*428 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2006); *Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*294 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C.2003) *(“Piper I").*The District Court correctly concluded that Appellees’ withholding and redacting of the disputed documents was reasonable under Exemptions 7(t!)-(E) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). The District Court also correctly concluded that Appellees’ search for documents in response to Appellant’s FOIA request was adequate, *Piper I,*294 F.Supp.2d at 21-24, and that the allegation that documents were destroyed *before*Appellant’s FOIA request is immaterial as to whether the agencies have met their burden under FOIA; “FOIA does not impose a document retention requirement on government agencies,” *id.*at 22. Nothing in *National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish,*541 U.S. 157, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004), undermines the District Court’s analysis.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. R. 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000829324
<NAME>                        National Equities Holding, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                               U.S Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                        27,609
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 22,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                     720
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              50,415
<PP&E>                                     1,381,284
<DEPRECIATION>                               (57,576)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3,947,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        627,166
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      38,250
<OTHER-SE>                                 3,282,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3,947,696
<SALES>                                       14,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              23,170
<CGS>                                        930,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             206,596
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,117,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,117,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,117,782)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.029)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.030)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,675,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,410,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,600,424
<PP&E>                                       3,181,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                 832,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,243,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,315,331
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,520,000
<COMMON>                                        58,706
<OTHER-SE>                                     613,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,243,419
<SALES>                                      7,611,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,611,113
<CGS>                                        4,922,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,795,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             182,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,655,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,655,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,655,609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

______________ 

No. 10-1093

_____________ 

In Re: KWAME GYAMFI, 

 Petitioner. 

_____________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

_____________ 

Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 

_____________ 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

_____________ 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

_____________ 

Kwame Gyamfi, Petitioner Pro Se. 

_____________ 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Kwame Gyamfi petitions for writ of mandamus pursuant to the 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). He 

asserts that he is entitled to mandamus relief because the 

district court denied his motion for default judgment on his 

complaint seeking civil damages from the United States 

government for an alleged violation of his rights under the 

Taxpayer Bill of Rights, 26 U.S.C. § 7433. Petitioner asserts 

that Internal Revenue Service employees have violated numerous 

criminal statutes in connection with collection of taxes owed by 

him and in defending the civil suit he filed below. 

 Petitioner’s request for mandamus relief is denied. We 

note that Gyamfi did not first assert the rights described in 

§ 3771(a) of the CVRA in the district court as required by 

§ 3771(d)(3). Section 3771(d)(3) provides that a movant may 

petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus only where 

the district court has denied the relief sought by motion 

asserting a victim’s right. 

 In any event, petitioner was not entitled to the 

protections of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in his district court 

proceedings which were civil in nature. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3771(d)(3). The CVRA was designed to protect victims and 

guarantee them some involvement in the criminal justice process. 

“The rights codified by the CVRA, however, are limited to the 

2 
3 

criminal justice process; the Act is therefore silent and 

unconcerned with victims’ rights to file civil claims.” United 

States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234-35 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(citation omitted). 

 Finding no application of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 to these 

proceedings, we deny the petition. 

PETITION DENIED
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. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co.

Consol Penn PENN 2014-816 Meeting Notice 3-23-18.pdf

Consol Penn PENN 2014-816 Meeting Notice 3-23-18.htm

secretary-labor-v-consol-pennsylvania-coal-docket-penn2014-816-3-23-18.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 

2007 Annual Employee Survey Results 

Question 2007 FR

Positive R

I have trust and confidence in my supervisor. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor/team leader? My workload is reasonable. Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds. I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders. In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization. Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its goals and objectives. Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job. My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats. How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what's going on in your organization?How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. My supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues.  I know how my work relates to the agency's goals and priorities. Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the workplace) allow 

employees to perform their jobs well. 

Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes. Creativity and innovation are rewarded. Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 
Question 2007 FR

Positive R

In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are worthwhile. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job? In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (e.g. Fully Successful, Outstanding). I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. My talents are used well in the workplace. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development. My training needs are assessed. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. I like the kind of work I do. The work I do is important. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work? How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization? Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4601]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1356-DR]


Texas; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Texas (FEMA-1356-DR), dated January 8, 2001, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2001.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as authorized by 
the President in a letter dated January 18, 2001, FEMA is extending the 
time period for Federal funding for debris removal at 90 percent of 
total eligible costs through July 9, 2001.

(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)

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 01-4601 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2672

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retain 80-percent deductibility for meal expenses of drivers of motor vehicles who are subject to

Federal restrictions on hours of duty.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 20, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retain

80-percent deductibility for meal expenses of drivers of

motor vehicles who are subject to Federal restrictions

on hours of duty.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) paragraph (1) of section 274(n) of the Internal

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end

5 thereof the following new sentence: ‘‘In the case of any

6 expense for food or beverages consumed by any driver of

7 a motor vehicle during any period of duty subject to the

8 hours of service limitations of the Department of Trans-
2

•HR 2672 IH

1 portation, the preceding sentence shall be applied without

2 regard to any amendment made thereto by the Revenue

3 Reconciliation Act of 1993; except this sentence shall not

4 apply to the extent that expenses for food or beverages

5 so consumed by any driver exceed $50 per day.’’

6 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

7 apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.

Æ
window.addEventListener("load", (event) => {
    let $tabs = jQuery('.fsrd-article__tabs');
    $tabs.responsiveTabs({rotate: false, startCollapsed: 'accordion', collapsible: 'accordion', setHash: true});
});