alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60494 Summary Calendar

JOSEPH R. EGLAND,

Petitioner

v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; P.C. PFEIFFER COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Respondents

Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board BRB No. 15

- 300

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

. P ER CURIAM: * Joseph R. Egland filed a claim against P.C. Pfeiffer Company (“P.C. Pfeiffer”) under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. (“the Act”). Egland alleged that , in violation of Section 49 of the Act, P.C. Pfeiffer refused to allow him to return to work because he had

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60494 Document: 00513975573 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017No. 16

- 60494

2 previously filed a compensation claim

. See 33 U.S.C. § 948a (prohibit ing any employer from “discharg [ing] or in any other manner discriminat[ing] against an employee as to his employment because such employee has claimed or attempted to clai m compensation from such employer”). Egland appeals the Benefits Review Board ’s (“BRB”) decision affirming the administrative law judge’s ( “ ALJ”) denial of Egland’s claim. We AFFIRM the decision of the BRB. “[O]nce the BRB affirms an order of the ALJ, we n eed only inquire whether the BRB ‘correctly concluded that the ALJ’s order was supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the
law.’” La. Ins. Guar. Ass’ n v. Dir., OWCP , 614 F.3d 179, 185 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP , 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993)). The ALJ “is entitled to consider all credibility inferences [and the ALJ’s] selection among inferences is conclusive if supported by the evidence
and the law.” Id. (alterations i n original) (quoting Mendoza v. Marine Pers. Co. , 46 F.3d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1995))

. The ALJ weighed the evidence and determined that Egland set forth a prima facie case and that he was entitled to a presumption of discrimination
under Section 49. But the ALJ then determined that P.C. Pfeiffer rebutted Egland’s presumption of discrimination and th at Egland failed to meet the burden of persuasion for his claim. Egland argues that P.C. Pfeiffer did not rebut his presumption of discrimination . Viewing the rec ord as a whole, we disagree. The BRB held that “[s]ubstantial evidence supports the [ALJ’s]
conclusion that claimant did not establish that employer’s action in not allowing claimant to return to work was motivated by claimant’s filing a compensation claim .” Finding no error, we AFFIRM the decision of the BRB. Case: 16-60494 Document: 00513975573 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2017
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 1 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 2 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 3 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 4 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 5 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 6 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 7 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 8 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 9 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 10 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 11 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 12 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 13 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 14 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 15 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 16 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 17 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 18 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 19 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 20 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 21 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 22 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 23 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 24 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 25 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 26 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 27 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 28 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 29 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 30 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 31 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 32 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 33 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 34 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 35 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 36 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 37 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 38 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 39 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 40 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 41 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 42 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 43 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 44 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 45 of 46
Case 1:02-cv-05167 Document 42 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 46 of 46
# Official Journal L 203I/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 203I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 604 August 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 203I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 604 August 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1417 of 4 August 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1417 of 4 August 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

5

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
----

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 June 2006 to 30 June 2006

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC (2))

(2006/C 176/10)

—   Issuing, maintenance or modification of a national marketing authorisation

----

(1)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

(2)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1.

----

ANNEX I

LIST OF THE NAMES, PHARMACEUTICAL FORM, STRENGTH OF THE MEDICINAL PRODUCTS, ROUTES OF ADMINISTRATION, ANIMAL SPECIES AND MARKETING AUTHORISATION HOLDERS IN THE CONCERNED MEMBER STATES

----
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:376

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:377

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:378

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:379

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:380

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:381

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:382

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:383

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:384

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:385

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:386

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:387

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:388

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:389

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:390

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:391

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:392

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:393

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:394

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:395

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:396

Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 89 Filed: 08/14/02 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:397
#### In the Matter of James Harvey III, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 680]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, a correction officer found a pen with a needle attached to the ink cartridge. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon, possessing an altered item and possessing contraband. He was found guilty of the charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty to possessing an altered item and possessing contraband, he is precluded from challenging the determination of guilt with respect to those charges *(see Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer,*76 AD3d 1131, 1131-1132 [2010]; *Matter of Pedraza v Fischer,*65 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2009]). As for the charge of possessing a weapon, the misbehavior report and related documentation, including a photograph clearly revealing that the item was a dangerous instrumentality *(see*7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]), provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt with respect to that charge *(see Matter of Chiarappa v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1628, 1629 [2011]; *Matter of Truman v Fischer,*75 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2010]). Although petitioner denied possessing a weapon and asserted that he used the item to cut out pictures from magazines, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Vidal-Ortiz v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1627, 1628 [2011]; *Matter of Haynes v Bezio,*73 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2010]). His claim of hearing officer bias has not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it in his administrative appeal *(see Matter of Hall v Fischer,*87 AD3d *13041235, 1236 [2011]; *Matter of Crenshaw v*Fischer, 87 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011]).

Mercure, J.E, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Echo Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harry G. Mitchell, CPA, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





(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/ Harry G. Mitchell, CPA


Harry G. Mitchell, CPA


Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer





November 15, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Waterford Gaming Finance Corp.
All amounts are unaudited.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                          90
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southwest Watershed Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About SWRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona SWRC Docs





- Research Overview
- Most Important Manuals/Reports/Bulletins from the SWRC
- Science Results
- Experimental Watersheds

Science Results (Winter 2012)headline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Guam Industrial Services, Inc.,

d/b/a Guam Shipyard Under ContractNo. 000000-00-0-0000 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59075

David J. Taylor, Esq.

Montgomery Fazzone & Taylor PLLC Washington, DC David B. Dixon, Esq.

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Washington, DC Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Stephanie Cates-Harman, Esq.

Assistant Director John Noel, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: 12 February 2014

# ~ Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59075, Appeal ofGuam Industrial Services, Inc., d/b/a Guam Shipyard, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### Ralph B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Neita HULLUM; Julie Thaler; Directors Review Committee; Stephanie Hidrago; Kay Sheeley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-50205

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 4, 2011.

Ralph B. Smith, Rusk, TX, pro se.

Adam A. Auchter, Esq., Jesus A. Garza, Esq., Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ralph B. Smith, Texas prisoner # 855314, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the district court’s dismissal in part and grant of summary judgment to the defendants in part of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Smith is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5).

Smith argues that the district court erred by not granting him a default judgment because the defendants did not file a timely answer. However, a district judge has discretion to determine that a default judgment “should not be granted on the claim, without more, that the defendant had failed to meet a procedural time requirement.” *Lacy v. Sitel Corp.,*227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Since Smith has failed to make the necessary showing, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Because Smith’s appeal is frivolous, the IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. *See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex.,*929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.1991).

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). As Smith has now accumulated three strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915 while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g); *Smith v. Sheeley,*No. 6:09-CV-002, slip op. at 1 (W.D.Tex. Aug. 20, 2009) (unpublished); *Smith v. Owens,*No. 5:09-CV-181, slip op. at 1, 2010 WL 786304 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished).

IFP MOTION DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>

SECTION 906                                                         EXHIBIT 99.2


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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Globecomm Systems Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
C. Melfi, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and.

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


                                  /s/ ANDREW C. MELFI
                                  ---------------------------------------
                                  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                  and Treasurer
                                  May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.