alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted May 19,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration October 11, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Sherry A. Young, Claimant. Sherry A. YOUNG, *Petitioner, v.*SAIF CORPORATION and Sunnyside Care Center, *Respondents.*

(WCB 91-12999; CA A82555)

903 P2d 419

Michael D. Callahan argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Callahan and Stevens.

David L. Runner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

WARREN, P. J.

*195WARREN, P. J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. We reverse and remand.

Claimant requested authorization for low back surgery. SAIF, her employer’s insurer, referred the request to the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services for approval. The director concluded that the requested surgery was inappropriate. Claimant requested a hearing on the director’s order. The referee held that the surgery was appropriate and awarded claimant an attorney fee under ORS 656.386(1) for prevailing on the issue. SAIF requested Board review of the referee’s order. While that review was pending, the director issued a second order, in which he held that the proposed surgery was appropriate and ordered SAIF to provide reimbursement for the surgery. That order was not appealed.

The Board then vacated the referee’s order concerning the first request for surgery. It concluded that the medical services dispute was moot, because the director had subsequently found the surgery to be appropriate and had ordered SAIF to pay for it. The Board further held that, even if the medical services dispute was not moot, and even if it were to determine that the original request for surgery should have been granted, it would nonetheless deny an award of attorney fees under ORS 656.386(1).

Claimant seeks review. She challenges the Board’s determination that the medical services dispute is moot, as well as the denial of her request for attorney fees under ORS 656.386(1). At this juncture it is apparent that the only “live” issue in this case is claimant’s entitlement to attorney fees under ORS 656.386(1). A Board determination that the original request for surgery should have been approved could no longer affect claimant’s ability to obtain surgery; that has been resolved by the second director’s order.

ORS 656.386(1) was amended by the 1995 legislature. Or Laws 1995, ch 332, § 43. The amendments took effect on June 7, 1995, and apply to cases pending before this court on that date. *Volk v. America West Airlines,*135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995). Accordingly, we remand for the *196Board to reconsider attorney fees in light of the 1995 amendments.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of earnings, consolidated balance sheet and consolidated
statement of cash flows included in the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.7116
<CASH>                                         499,278
<SECURITIES>                                    31,814
<RECEIVABLES>                                  441,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,067
<INVENTORY>                                    196,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,201,690
<PP&E>                                         881,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                 430,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,966,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          255,798
<BONDS>                                        383,311
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       456,510
<OTHER-SE>                                     777,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,966,825
<SALES>                                      1,620,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,620,620
<CGS>                                          625,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,612,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,314
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,001
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
#### Locke *v.*Barrington.

The court may refer an action against the consent of the parties, when the plaintiff limits his demand to $100, though the *ad damnum*in the writ exceeds that sum.

Case, for injury upon a highway. The *ad damnum*in the writ exceeded $100, and the plaintiff’s counsel stating that he did not claim more than $100, the cause was referred against the defendants’ objection. The referee awarded $150. The plaintiff remitting the amount in excess of $100, the court ordered judgment for the plaintiff for that sum, and the defendants excepted.

Wheeler, for the defendants.

*Copeland*Edgerly, for the plaintiff.

Allen, J.

When the plaintiff limited her demand to one hundred dollars, the amount in controversy became limited to that sum, and the title to real estate not being in question, the court, either with or without the consent of the parties, might refer the action. G. L., *c.*231, *s.*10. The award exceeding the amount claimed, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on remitting the excess. *Hoit*v. Molony, 2 N. H. 323; *Sanborn*v. Emerson, 12 N. H. 58; *Pierce*v. *Wood,*23 N. H. 519; *Willard*v. Stevens, 24 N. H. 271; *Taylor*v. *Jones,*42 N. H. 25, 38.

*Exceptions overruled. ■*

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MIGUEL ANGEL FERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00056-1; 5:02-cv-00081) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miguel Angel Fernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Miguel Angel Fernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Fernandez’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Fernandez’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                                 October 5, 2004

Mr. Nathaniel A. Gregory
C/o Capricorn Management LLC
30 East Elm Street
Greenwich, CT 06830

Dear Nat:

Reference is made to the Separation Agreement dated July 28, 2004 between NATCO
Group Inc. and you. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter are
used as defined in the Separation Agreement.

Section 4(c) of the Separation Agreement provides in part that Individual shall
be entitled to receive the bonus otherwise payable to him under the Company's
2004 Bonus Plan, based on his period of employment during 2004 and that the
financial component of Individual's bonus shall be based on the period January
1, 2004 through the Separation Date, shall be determined by the Board on or
prior to October 7, 2004, and shall be payable to Individual on that date. The
Parties acknowledge and agree that an October 7 date for payment of this portion
of Individual's bonus will not permit sufficient time to review and calculate
the payment, and that the portion of the payment due on October 7 that relates
to the financial portion of the 2004 bonus payable to Individual shall not be
due and payable until November 7, 2004.

Nothing in this letter alters any other provision of the Separation Agreement,
including but not limited to the Company's obligation to pay to Individual on or
before October 7, 2004, cash in the amount of $989,389.25, subject to all
required payroll, income and other tax withholdings and all other required
deductions, but the Company will use reasonable efforts, consistent with
applicable law, to minimize the amount of withholding, which remains in full
force and effect.

Please signify your agreement with the terms of this letter by signing below and
returning a copy to the undersigned by fax to 713-812-6654.

                                                Sincerely yours,

                                                /s/ John U. Clarke

                                                John U. Clarke
                                                Chairman and Interim Chief
                                                Executive Officer

Accepted and agreed, this __ day of
October 2004:

/s/ Nathaniel A. Gregory

Nathaniel A. Gregory
Exhibit 10.4






                          Awards to Executive Officers
                            Not Reported on Form 8-K
                                 October 4, 2004

1. Performance-accelerated restricted stock awards granted October 4, 2004 under
the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan:

        Victor L. Richey,  Jr. - 7,800 shares
        Charles J.  Kretschmer - 5,000 shares
        Gary E. Muenster - 3,200 shares
        Alyson S. Barclay - 2,300 shares

See Exhibit 10.5 of this Form 10-Q.

2. Incentive stock option awards under the 2004 Incentive Compensation Plan:

          Charles J.  Kretschmer:  number of shares granted - 450, date of grant
          October 4, 2004, option price $70.36

          Gary E.  Muenster:  number of shares  granted - 1,247,  date of grant,
          October 4, 2004, option price $70.36

          Alyson  Barclay:  number of shares  granted  - 1,528,  date of grant,
          October 4, 2004, option price $70,36

See Exhibit 10.6 of this Form 10-Q

3. Nonqualified stock option awards under the 2004 Incentive Compensation Plan:

          Victor L. Richey, Jr.: number of shares granted - 7,800, date of grant
          October 4, 2004, option price $70.36

          Charles J. Kretschmer: number of shares granted - 4,550, date of grant
          October 4, 2004, option price $70.36

          Gary E.  Muenster:  number  of shares  granted - 1,950,  date of grant
          October 4, 2004, option price $70.36

          Alyson Barclay:  number of shares granted - 772, date of grant October
          4, 2004, option price $70.36

See Exhibit 10.7 of this Form 10-Q
§ 64.55 Relief device location. A pressure relief device must be located on an MPT in a place that— ( a ) Is the highest practical point of the tank; and
( b ) Allows direct communication with the vapor space.
§ 385.5 Applicability. The MarAd assistance regulations apply to all MarAd research and development programs which will result in assistance awards, and to all recipients eligible for MarAd assistance awards such as state and local governments, institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, individuals, profitmaking organizations, and foreign organizations. The provisions of this part govern the award and administration of all such financial assistance matters, including resolutions and guidelines issued by MarAd except: ( a ) As otherwise required by statute; and,
( b ) As otherwise provided by specific program regulations.
#### § 349.2 Application for certification.

Pursuant to 46 App. U.S.C. 1132, an individual may submit an application to MARAD not later than 45 days after the date the individual completes the period of employment described in § 349.3 of this part.
§ 67.235 Requirements for mortgages. ( a ) A mortgage presented for filing and recording must: ( 1 ) Be signed by or on behalf of each mortgagor; and
( 2 ) Recite the following: ( i ) The name and address of each mortgagor and the interest in the vessel held by the mortgagor(s);
( ii ) The name and address of each mortgagee and the interest in the vessel granted by the mortgage; and
( iii ) The amount of the direct or contingent obligations that is or may become secured by the mortgage, excluding interest, expenses, and fees. The amount may be recited in one or more units of account as agreed to by the parties.
( b ) A mortgage submitted for filing and recording as a preferred mortgage must cover the whole of a vessel.
( c ) A mortgage which secures more than one vessel may, at the option of the parties, provide for separate discharge of such vessels.
# C_2012250EN.01001403.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/14

---

Order of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-531/11) (1)

1

(Annulment action - Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism - Lis pendens)

2012/C 250/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Damascus, Syria and Gaza, Gaza Strip) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council (represented: initially by T. Szostak and G. Marhic, and subsequently by B. Driessen and G.Étienne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Initially, action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), and Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), in so far as the applicant organisation’s name is maintained on the list of persons, groups and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources laid down with a view to combating terrorism.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Hamas is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Hamas is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---
STq % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

# o~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

0 2 4rq 4 PROS EGS\


### OCT 1 2014
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Jose Franco Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221-3090
Dear Mr. Franco: During the week of October 22, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency performed inspections of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste management and storage operations, emplacement activities, and the monitoring program (Docket: A-98-49, II-B3-127). These inspections were performed under the authorities of 40 CFR 194.21 and 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart A. As a result of these inspections, the Agency determined that the activities related to emissions monitoring during waste management and storage complied with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart A. We also determined that the U.S. Department of Energy adequately monitored the ten parameters that are important to the long-term containment of waste, as identified in the EPA's 1998 Certification Decision. The EPA also determined that waste was properly emplaced. Please note that these inspections were conducted prior to the radiological incident at the WIPP in February. In the next inspection, the Agency expects to review affected aspects of DOE's program (40 CFR 194.21 and 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart A) that were involved in this incident. Copies of these inspection reports are enclosed with this letter and will be placed in the EPA's public dockets. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed reports, please contact Jonathan Walsh at (202) 343-9238.

Radiation Protection Division Enclosures 1. Inspection No. EPA-WIPP- 10. 1 3-22a (10/22-24/2013) 2. Inspection No. EPA-WIPP- 10. 13-22b (10/22-24/2013) 3. Inspection No. EPA-WIPP- 10. 13-22c (10/22-24/2013)

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 9 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100°10 Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          421781
<SECURITIES>                                     32500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   213005
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     156699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                853996
<PP&E>                                          483561
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2321970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1164377
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6834
<OTHER-SE>                                     1157593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2321970
<SALES>                                         148659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                442172
<CGS>                                           119532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1249018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 31289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1654342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1654342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (35845)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1690187)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.11



                    ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF
                  INCORPORATION OF AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC.


     Pursuant to the approval by holders of a majority of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Corporation at the Corporation's annual meeting
held on January 19, 1998, such shareholder approval being in accordance with
Section 14-2-1003 of the Georgia Business Corporation Code, the Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation, as previously amended to the date hereof, are
hereby further amended by deleting the first paragraph of Article Five in its
entirety and replacing it with the following:

          The Corporation shall have authority exercisable by its Board of
          Directors to issue not more than 100,000,000 shares of common voting
          stock $.01 par value per share (the "Common Stock"), and 20,000,000
          shares of a special class of stock $2.00 par value per share (the
          "Special Stock") which shall be designated as the Board of Directors
          may determine and which may be issued in series by the Board of
          Directors as hereinafter provided. Preferences, limitation, and
          relative rights with respect to the shares of each class of stock of
          the Corporation shall be as hereinafter set forth:

     The foregoing amendment with respect to the Common Stock of the
Corporation was approved to increase the authorized number of the Corporation's
shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value per share, from 16,666,667 shares to
100,000,000 shares.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand.




                                                /s/ Karl L. Blaha
                                                -----------------------
                                                Karl L. Blaha
                                                President