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

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Murray American Energy, Inc., 1

Employer Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 2 2

- 9 2 3 ( JCN: 2020016744 )

(ICA No. 22

- ICA

- 33 )

Sean Stapel

, Claimant Below, Respondent



### MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Murray American Energy, Inc. appeals the November 1 5 , 2022, memorandum

decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“ ICA ”)

. See Murray Am

. Energy,

Inc. v. Stapel , No. 22

- ICA

- 33, 2022 WL 17164526 (W. Va. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2022) (memorandum

decision)

. Respondent Sean Stapel filed a timely response. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the

ICA erred in affirming the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Office of

Judges

, 3 which reversed the claim administrator ’s February 1 7 , 2022, order and granted

authorization for a pain management consultation.

The employer asserts that the Office of Judges , as affirmed by the ICA, erred in finding

that the pain management consultation was reasonably required and medically related to the

compensable injury. The claimant maintains that the employer points to no erroneous procedure,

no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, and no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the

tribunals below.

1 For reasons not readily apparent in the record on appeal , the parties have substituted

“Marshall County Coal Resources, Inc.” for the employer that was identified below

, “Murray

American Energy, Inc.” However, we use the name of the employer as designated in the order on

appeal

.

2 The petitioner is represented by counsel Aimee M. Stern , and the respondent is

represented by counsel Christopher J. Wallace

.

3 The ICA , not the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, reviewed the Office of

Judges’ decision in this case because the Office of Judges’ order was entered during the transfer

to the reconstituted Board of Review. See W. Va. Code § 23

- 5

- 8a (a) (transferring powers and

duties of Office of Judges to Board of Review)

. 

### FILED

August 1, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2

This Court reviews questions of law de novo , while we accord deference to factual findings

unless th e findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n , No. 23

- 43, 2024

WL 1715166 (W. Va. Apr. 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).

Affirm ed.

ISSUED: 

### August 1, 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 10.7

----

|   | Gary V.    Jandegian |                            |
|--------|----------------------|---------------------------------|
|   |                 |                            |   |
|   | By:                  | /s/ Gary      V. Jandegian |   |
|   |                 | Gary      V. Jandegian          |   |
|   |                 |                            |   |
|   |                 |                            |   |

|   | URS      Corporation,a Nevada corporation |                                      |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                      |                                      |   |
|   | By:                                       | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks             |   |
|   |                                      | Name:      H. Thomas Hicks                |   |
|   |                                      | Title:      Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   |                                      |                                      |   |

----
II 

Calendar No. 92 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1317 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare part A benefit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2011 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. VITTER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. LEE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. GRAHAM, Ms. 

AYOTTE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, and Mrs. 

HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and ordered to be placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare 

part A benefit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Retirement Freedom 

5 Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1317 PCS

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT 

2 OF THE MEDICARE PART A BENEFIT. 

3 Any individual who is otherwise entitled to benefits 

4 under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act may 

5 elect (in such form and manner as may be specified by 

6 the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to opt out 

7 of such entitlement. Notwithstanding any other provision 

8 of law, in the case of an individual who makes such an 

9 election, such individual— 

10 (1) may (in such form and manner as may be 

11 specified by the Secretary) subsequently choose to 

12 end such election and opt back into such entitlement 

13 (in accordance with a process determined by the 

14 Secretary) without being subject to any penalty; 

15 (2) shall not be required to opt out of benefits 

16 under title II of such Act as a condition for making 

17 such election; and 

18 (3) shall not be required to repay any amount 

19 paid under such part A for items and services fur20 nished prior to making such election. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 92 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1317 

A BILL 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the 

Medicare part A benefit. 

JUNE 30, 2011 

Read twice and ordered to be placed on the calendar 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1315 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

extend public safety officers’ death benefits to fire police officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2011 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to extend public safety officers’ death benefits to fire police officers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fire Police Fairness 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENDING PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENE7 FITS TO FIRE POLICE. 

8 Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

9 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended— 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1315 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through 

2 (9) as paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively; 

3 (2) in paragraph (10)(A) (as so redesignated by 

4 paragraph (1) of this section), by inserting ‘‘as a 

5 fire police officer,’’ after ‘‘firefighter,’’; and 

6 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol7 lowing new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) ‘fire police officer’ includes an individual 

9 who— 

10 ‘‘(A) is serving in accordance with State or 

11 local law as an officially recognized or des12 ignated member of a legally organized public 

13 safety agency but is not a law enforcement offi14 cer, a firefighter, a chaplain, or a member of a 

15 rescue squad or ambulance crew described in 

16 paragraph (10)(A); and 

17 ‘‘(B) is officially deployed to provide scene 

18 security or direct traffic— 

19 ‘‘(i) in response to any fire drill, fire 

20 call, or other fire, rescue, or police emer21 gency; or 

22 ‘‘(ii) at a planned special event;’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 54919.

#### Gebruder Fikse et al. *v.*United States,

protests 160975-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 11

Statement re: computation of per share earnings

         The following table reconciles the weighted average shares outstanding
and the income available to common shareholders used for basic and diluted
earnings (loss) per share:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Year ended December 31,
                                                             -----------------------
                                                       2001            2000           1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>            <C>
Weighted average number of common shares
  Outstanding used in basic earnings (loss) per
  Common Share calculation                           2,133,950       2,133,906      2,133,906
Dilutive effect of stock options                         1,814               0            414
                                                   -----------     -----------    -----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
  adjusted for effect of dilutive securities
  used in diluted EPS calculation                    2,135,764       2,133,906      2,134,320

Net income (loss)                                     ($75,001)    $ 1,138,577    $   711,241

Basic earnings (loss) per common share                  ($0.04)    $       .53    $       .33

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share                ($0.04)    $       .53    $       .33
</TABLE>
Exhibit 12 (b)

                             BNP U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DIVIDENDS

                          (in thousands, except ratios)
<TABLE>

                                                                   For the Year Ended
                                                                    December 31, 2004
                                                                    -----------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
Net income                                                              $23,365
                                                                         ======
Fixed charges:
      Audit fees                                                             51
      Trustee fees                                                          119
      Administrative and consulting fees                                  1,157
                                                                          -----
Total fixed charges                                                       1,327
                                                                          -----
Earnings before fixed charges                                           $24,692
Fixed charges, as above                                                   1,327
                                                                          -----
Preferred securities dividend                                            38,690
                                                                         ------
Fixed charges including preferred securities dividends                 $ 40,017
                                                                        -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred securities dividend        .62
                                                                            ---
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clayton W. HACKNEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-4370.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Michael L. Desautels, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, W. Chad Noel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Clayton W. Hackney pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000); possession of a firearm while an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2) (2000); and *543possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5871 (2000). His sentencing occurred on March 21, 2005, after the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. ——, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), ruling that its decision in *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), was applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines. The district court, in sentencing Hackney, carefully and thoroughly applied the holding in *Booker.*The court sentenced Hackney to sixty-three months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

On appeal, Hackney raises one issue, which he did not raise in the district court. He argues that his due process rights, as informed by ex post facto principles, are violated by the imposition of a sentence under the Supreme Court’s remedial decision in *Booker*(referring to the Court’s opinion expressed through Justice Breyer, which makes the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory), rather than under the mandatory guidelines applicable at the time of his offense. Reviewing this claim for plain error, we find none. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (plain error standard); *United States v. Jamison,*416 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.2005) (rejecting ex post facto claim); *United States v. Lata,*415 F.3d 107 (1st Cir.2005) (same); *United States v. Scroggins,*411 F.3d 572, 576 (5th Cir.2005) (same); *United States v. Duncan,*400 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.2005) (same), *petition for cert. filed,*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d - (U.S. July 20, 2005) (No. 05-5467).

Having found that Hackney failed to establish plain error under the *Olano*standard, we affirm his sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
OMNI AIR INTERNATIONAL

P.O. BOX 582527  TULSA, OK 74158  918-836-5393  FAX: 918-831-3098

04 November 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590.

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR §11.25, Omni Air International is 

petitioning the Administrator for an extension of Exemption No. 10041. This exemption will expired on 

March 31, 2014

Exemption 10041 provides relief, under certain conditions and limitations, from 14 CFR §

121.613, 121.619(a) and 121.625 to the extent necessary to: (1) dispatch an airplane, under IFR, to a 

destination airport; and (2) list an alternate airport for that destination airport when the Aerodrome 

Forecast (TAF) for either one or both of those airports indicates by the use of conditional language such 

as “BECMG”, “PROB” or “TEMPO”, in the TAF that the weather could be below authorized weather 

minimums at the time of arrival. Dispatch under these circumstances is permitted if the information 

contained in the main body of the TAF used by the certificate holder’s dispatch center shows, for each 

flight to be dispatched, that the weather at the destination airport and alternate airport listed in the 

dispatch release will be at or above authorized weather minimums at the time of arrival.

This exemption has been used to the benefit of the traveling public for many years, with no known 

compromise of safety. With regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, the circumstances 

that warranted the initial grant of exemption continue to exist. 

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. For this reason, and the reasons 

stated above, Omni Air International requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving 

publication in the Federal Register. Granting the request for relief will set no precedents. The existence of 

the exemption is well known and widely accepted.

If any further information is required, please call me at (918) 831-3067.

Very truly yours,

Robert E. Zeng

Director of Operations

Omni Air International
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                                    Amendment
                               Employee Agreement
                                  Date: 9/3/99
              Between School Specialty, Inc and Donald J. Noskowiak

Based on the mutual agreement of both the Company and the Employee, as defined
in the agreement, the below mentioned amendments are being made to the
Employment Agreement, dated 9/3/99, between School Specialty, Inc (Company) and
Donald J. Noskowiak (Employee). Unless specifically addressed in the amendment
all other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as listed within, remain as
such.

Section 1       "Employment and Duties"

Effective June 1, 2003, the Company agrees to retain Donald J. Noskowiak as a
Consultant. The length of this Consultant arrangement is from June 1, 2003 until
January 31, 2004. Consultant duties include but not limited to: Support for
transition of employment, consulting on issues and transactions that were worked
on while employed and any unresolved issues, etc. that pertain to prior duties
as listed in the 9-3-99 agreement. Rate of pay will be $100 per hour.

Section 2       "Term of Employment"

Employee's employment with School Specialty, Inc. is hereby being terminated
effective 5/31/03 prior to the end of the "term".

Section 3 (b)   Compensation - "Incentive Bonus"

Employee shall be entitled to his earned bonus for FY 2003

Section 3 (c) Compensation - "Perquisites, Benefits, and Other Compensation"

All perquisites and benefits as are customarily provided by the Company, will
cease on 5/31/03.

Section 4 (a)   "Covenants and Conditions"

It is mutually agreed that the period of two (2) years, as mentioned in 4(a)
starts after the expiration of the consulting arrangement vs "Termination of his
Employment".

Section 6       "Termination and Severance Compensation"

The employee shall be paid eighteen (18) months of severance at his existing
base salary at time of termination. Employee will be paid bi-weekly starting
6-13-03 and check will be sent to employee's home address.

Section 10      "Covenant Not To Compete"

Covenant not to compete timeframe will start with the conclusion of the
consulting arrangement vs termination date.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to the
Employment Agreement dated 9/3/99 to be duly executed as of the date signed
below.

                                            COMPANY: SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC.

Dated: 06/1/03                              /s/ David J. Vander Zanden
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            David Vander Zanden, President & CEO

Dated:  06/1/03                             /s/ Donald J. Noskowiak
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Donald J. Noskowiak, Individually
No. 53260.

#### British West Indies Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145564-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 309 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 309

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 2, 2008

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 6, 2008, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on

              

 Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly designate, the 2008 
District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in 
this resolution referred to as the ``event'') may be run through the 
Capitol Grounds as part of the journey of the Special Olympics torch to 
the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Robert F. Reeves,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, M. David Jones, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Wallace Computer
Services, Inc. (the Company) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January
31, 2003 of the Company (the Report):



| |                                                                                                                                      
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ M. David Jones
M. David Jones
Wallace Computer Services
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

March 7, 2003