alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Gary Whited, Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-440 (JCN: 2019006554)

(ICA No. 22-ICA-300)

Blackhawk Mining, LLC, Employer Below, Respondent



### MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Gary Whited appeals the June 15, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Whited v. Blackhawk Mining, LLC , No. 22-ICA-300, 2023 WL 4029122 (W. Va. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Blackhawk Mining, LLC filed a timely response. 1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s order, which reversed the claim administrator’s decision to grant the petitioner no additional permanent partial disability above his previous award of 3% permanent partial disability. Instead, the Board of Review granted him an additional 2% permanent partial disability award for a total of 5% permanent partial disability.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA committed clear error in adopting the decision of the Board of Review, which ignored the weight of the credible, medical evidence in the record. The petitioner maintains that his treating physician Mae Hyre, M.D., along with Michael Kominsky, D.O., and Robert Walker, M.D., best accounted for all impairments resulting from the petitioner’s compensable conditions, and their opinions assigning an additional percentage rating should have been adopted by the ICA. The respondent counters by arguing that the ICA’s decision should be affirmed, as it is legally correct and supported by the reliable, probative, substantial, and preponderant evidence in the record.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty.

Comm’n , No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. April 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

Affirmed.

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Stephen P. New and Amanda J. Taylor, and the respondent is represented by counsel Sean Harter. 

### FILED August 27, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2

ISSUED: 

### August 27, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn
Exhibit 31.1Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and15d-14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.I, John Hanna, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of The Fashion House Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   *Date: April 13, 2006* */s/ John Hanna*  *By: John Hanna*  *Chief Executive Officer*
----

|   | 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 operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ L. Paul Latham                            |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| L. Paul Latham                                |
| President and Chief Executive Officer         |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the             |
| Managing General Partner of                   |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                          |
| March 31, 2010                                |
|                                          |
|                                          |
| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                              |
| Mel G. Riggs                                  |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing General Partner of                   |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                          |
| March 31, 2010                                |
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:94cr4021-WS

ARTHUR JEROME MARTIN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION

FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

Before the court is Arthur Jerome Martin's motion for early termination of

his five-year term of supervised release. Doc. 396. To date, Martin has served

approximately 28 months—or 47%—of his 60 month term.

Martin's probation officer in Cocoa, Florida, has advised that Martin, who is

68 years old and disabled, is—and has been—in compliance with all standard

conditions of supervision. Martin maintains a stable residence, has stable income,

has satisfied his financial obligations, has consistently tested negative for the use of

illicit substances, and has not been arrested for any new criminal activities. The

probation officer in Cocoa nonetheless recommends that Martin's motion for early

Case 4:94-cr-04021-WS-WCS Document 399 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

termination be denied based on his Category III criminal history, a criminal history

that includes a 1987 conviction for misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor assault. 

The government likewise opposes Martin's motion, suggesting that Martin should

serve more than 47% of the statutorily-mandated term of supervised release given

his criminal history.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the court is authorized to terminate a

defendant's term of supervised release after the expiration of one (1) year "if it is

satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the

interest of justice." Given Martin's compliance to date with all conditions of

supervised release, the court is satisfied that Martin has earned consideration for

relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and that the interest of justice will be served by

terminating his supervised release at this time.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

 1. Martin's motion (doc. 396) for early termination of his five-year term of

supervised release is GRANTED. 

2. The defendant's term of supervised release shall be terminated effective 

immediately.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of March , 2014.

Case 4:94-cr-04021-WS-WCS Document 399 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:94-cr-04021-WS-WCS Document 399 Filed 03/06/14 Page 3 of 3
2006-0714.

#### State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. Alternative writ is granted and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the date of this entry; relator shall file her brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file its brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  26 LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended
June  30,  2007,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              January 7, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              January 7, 2008
§ 42.106 Classifying and recording defects. ( a ) *Classifying defects.* Examine each sample unit for the applicable type of defects listed in the table covering the container being inspected in §§ 42.112 and 42.113. Other defects, not specifically listed, shall be classified according to their effect on the intended use of the container. ( 1 ) Related defects are defects on a single container that are related to a single cause. If the initial incident causing one of the defects had not occurred, none of the other related defects on the container would be present. As an example of related defects, a can may be a leaker and the exterior may also be seriously rusted due to the leakage of the contents. In this case, the container is scored only once for these two defects since the rust condition can be attributed to the leak. Score the container according to whichever condition is the most serious. In this example, score as a “leaker” (a critical defect) and not as “pitted rust” (a major defect).
( 2 ) Unrelated defects are defects on a single container that result from separate causes. If the incident that caused one of the defects had not occurred, the other unrelated defects on the container would still be present. As an example of unrelated defects, a can may be seriously rusted, may have a bad dent along the seam, and the label may also be detached from the can because of improper gluing. In this case it is unlikely that any of the three defects exist because of a common cause. Therefore, they are considered unrelated defects and should be scored as three defects.
( 3 ) The lot acceptance portion of this procedure is based on the number of defects per 100 containers. It is necessary to determine if the defects on any one container are “related” defects or “unrelated” defects. A container is scored for the most serious of related defects, and is also scored for each unrelated defect.
( b ) *Recording defects.* Record on a worksheet the number, type, and class (critical, major, or minor) of defects on each sample unit.
( c ) *Totaling defects.* Add the number of defects in each class, then add the number of minor, major, and critical defects to obtain the total defects.
[31 FR 4687, Mar. 19, 1966, as amended at 36 FR 18456, Sept. 15, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977 and 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981; 78 FR 57035, Sept. 17, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72786-72787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29684]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
    Title: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export 
Administration Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0058.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 2,220.
    Number of Respondents: 222.
    Average Hours per Response: 10 hours.
    Needs and Uses: BIS codified its voluntary self-disclosure policy 
to increase public awareness of this policy and to provide the public 
with a good idea of BIS's likely response to a given disclosure. 
Voluntary self-disclosures allow BIS to conduct investigations of the 
disclosed incidents faster than

[[Page 72787]]

would be the case if BIS had to detect the violations without such 
disclosures.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-
for-profit institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, (202) 395-3123.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#294d6150474c42694d464a074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b3f1322353e301b3f3438753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.)
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, via by e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c062d3f21292938130762131f2929243e2d0c23212e6229233c622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f250e1c020a0a1b302441303c0a0a071d0e2f00020d410a001f41080019">[email protected]</span></a>, or fax to (202) 395-5167.

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-29684 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Santa Barbara County Rule 206 206 - 1 October 15, 1991

RULE 206. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT OR PERMIT TO

OPERATE. (Adopted 10/18/1971, revised 5/1/1972, readopted 10/23/1978, revised 10/15/1991)

The Control Officer may issue an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate to any new, modified, or reevaluated source for which a permit is required, subject to specified written conditions. Such conditions are for the purpose of ensuring that construction and operation of the source complies with all applicable local, state, and federal air quality laws, rules, and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, Section 44382 of the Health and Safety Code. Commencing construction or operation under such an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate shall be deemed acceptance of all the specified conditions. The Control Officer shall issue a new Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receipt of an application, if the applicant demonstrates that the source can operate in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal air quality laws, rules and regulations. Failure to comply with any condition specified pursuant to the provisions of this rule shall be a violation of this rule as well as of the applicable section of the Health and Safety Code.
Subpart 4.9 - Taxpayer Identification Number

Information

Parent topic: Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters

4.900 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policies and procedures for obtaining-

(a) Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) information that may be used for debt collection purposes;

and

(b) Contract information and payment information for submittal to the payment office for Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) reporting purposes.

4.901 Definition.

Common parent, as used in this subpart, means that corporate entity that owns or controls an

affiliated group of corporations that files its Federal income tax returns on a consolidated basis, and

of which the offeror is a member.

4.902 General.

(a) Debt collection. 31 U.S.C.7701(c) requires each contractor doing business with a Government

agency to furnish its TIN to that agency. 31 U.S.C.3325(d) requires the Government to include, with

each certified voucher prepared by the Government payment office and submitted to a disbursing

official, the TIN of the contractor receiving payment under the voucher. The TIN may be used by the

Government to collect and report on any delinquent amounts arising out of the contractor’s

relationship with the Government.

(b) Information reporting to the IRS. The TIN is also required for Government reporting of certain

contract information (see 4.903) and payment information (see 4.904) to the IRS.

4.903 Reporting contract information to the IRS.

(a) 26 U.S.C.6050M, as implemented in 26 CFR, requires heads of Federal executive agencies to

report certain information to the IRS.

(b)

(1) The required information applies to contract modifications-
(i) Increasing the amount of a contract awarded before January 1,1989, by $50,000 or more; and

(ii) Entered into on or after April 1,1990.

(2) The reporting requirement also applies to certain contracts and modifications thereto in excess

of $25,000 entered into on or after January 1,1989.

(c) The information to report is-

(1) Name, address, and TIN of the contractor;

(2) Name and TIN of the common parent (if any);

(3) Date of the contract action;

(4) Amount obligated on the contract action; and

(5) Estimated contract completion date.

(d) Transmit the information to the IRS through the Federal Procurement Data System (see subpart 

4.6 and implementing instructions).

4.904 Reporting payment information to the IRS.

26 U.S.C. 6041 and 6041 A, as implemented in 26 CFR, in part, require payors, including

Government agencies, to report to the IRS, on Form 1099, payments made to certain contractors. 26

U.S.C. 6109 requires a contractor to provide its TIN if a Form 1099 is required. The payment office

is responsible for submitting reports to the IRS.

4.905 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.204-3, Taxpayer Identification, in solicitations

that-

(a) Do not include the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management; and

(b) Are not conducted under the procedures of part 12.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors and Stockholders
First Brands Corporation:
 
We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-25773 on Form S-4 and Nos. 33-35770, 33-56992 and 33-56503 on Form S-8 of
First Brands Corporation of our report dated August 1, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of First Brands Corporation and subsidiaries as
of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 30, 1997, and our report dated August 1, 1997 on the related
schedule, which reports respectively are incorporated by reference and appear
in the June 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of First Brands Corporation.
 

                                          /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                          -----------------------------
                                          KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP
 
New York, New York
September 22, 1997


<PAGE>
#### §§ 4285.59-4285.68 [Reserved]
#### In re JOSEPHSSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

In the matter of the application of Axel Josephssou for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted.
APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

2005-2411.

#### Shaker Heights v. Mosely.

Cuyahoga App. No. 85227, 2005-Ohio-5433.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.