alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Birmingham, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0694 

Issued: August 19, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On February 24, 2016 appellant, filed a timely appeal from a February 8, 2016 decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Board has duly considered the 

matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a decision. 

By decision dated February 8, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

(Form CA-7) for the period September 9 through October 28, 2015. It advised that appellant had 

not responded to its December 28, 2015 letter requesting additional medical evidence supporting 

the claim. The Board finds that, in denying appellant’s claim for compensation, OWCP failed to 

consider evidence that had been submitted by appellant including an October 9, 2015 report from 

Dr. Joneice Toney Morgan and physical therapy reports which were received on January 14, 

2016 prior to the issuance of the February 8, 2016 decision. OWCP failed to evaluate this 

evidence of record in its February 8, 2016 decision. 

Because Board decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed,1

 it is crucial 

that OWCP address all relevant evidence received prior to the issuance of its final decision.2 As 

 1

 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). 

2 See William A. Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990). 
2

OWCP did not review any relevant evidence, the Board finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision.3

 On remand, OWCP shall review all evidence of record and, following any further 

development of the medical evidence deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on 

appellant’s claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 8, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for further 

action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: August 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 3 See H.H., Docket No. 14-1985 (issued June 26, 2015).
Argued and submitted December 7,

ballot title certified December 16, 1999

#### Rod HARDER and H. Joseph Colver, *Petitioners, v.*Hardy MYERS, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, *Respondent, and*Elizabeth FURSE and Jennifer Kirkpatrick, *Intervenors.*Roger COLLIS, *Petitioner, v.*Hardy MYERS, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, *Respondent, and*Elizabeth FURSE and Jennifer Kirkpatrick, *Intervenors.*

(SC S46923)

(SC S46924)

(Cases Consolidated for Argument and Opinion)

992 P2d 450

*550John A. DiLorenzo, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for petitioners Rod Harder and H. Joseph Colver. With him on the petition were Aaron K. Stuckey, and Hagen, Dye, Hirschy & DiLorenzo, P. C., Portland.

James M. Brown, of Enfield Brown Collins & Knivila, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner Roger Collis.

Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the answering memoranda were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Jacob Tanzer, Portland, argued the cause and filed the memoranda for intervenors.

PER CURIAM

*552PER CURIAM

These two ballot title review proceedings, which have been consolidated for the purposes of argument and opinion, are brought under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written comments concerning the content of the draft ballot title submitted to the Secretary of State and who therefore are entitled to seek review of the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. *See*ORS 250.085(2) (setting that requirement).

We have considered each of petitioners’ arguments concerning the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. We conclude that none establishes that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title fails substantially to comply with the standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a) to (d) (1997). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title:

> BANS BODY-GRIPPING ANIMAL TRAPS, SOME POISONS; RESTRICTS FUR COMMERCE

> RESULT OF ‘YES” VOTE: ‘Yes” vote bans: body-gripping traps, commerce in fur from such trapping, certain animal poisons.

> RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote rejects ban on: body-gripping traps, related commerce in fur, certain animal poisons.

> SUMMARY: Prohibits use of steel-jawed leghold traps and other body-gripping traps to capture mammals. Prohibits sale, purchase, barter, exchange of raw fur from mammal trapped in such traps in Oregon. Allows use of specified types of traps for protection of health and safety, animal control, research, and protection of endangered species if permit obtained from Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. Prohibits use of sodium fluoroacetate, also known as Compound 1080, or sodium cyanide, to poison or attempt to poison any animal. Penalties for violations.

Ballot title certified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
Filed 11/20/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 266

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Joshua Lee Buchanan, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20190183

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial 

District, the Honorable Troy J. LeFevre, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Joseph K. Nwoga, Assistant State’s Attorney, Jamestown, N.D., for plaintiff 

and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
1

State v. Buchanan

No. 20190183

Per Curiam. 

[¶1] Joshua Buchanan appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury 

found him guilty of aggravated assault domestic violence. He argues the 

evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict. Viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude sufficient 

evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor 

of conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). 

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

 Jerod E. Tufte

 Daniel J. Crothers

 Lisa Fair McEvers

 Jon J. Jensen
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000921052
<NAME>                        WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS IV, L.P., SER 4
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           1,147,906
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,147,906
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,801,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,431,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,801,763
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    65,307
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       70,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   806,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (811,881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (811,881)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (811,881)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (69.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        



</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40013

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARVIN JOEL ESCOBAR-CARCAMO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-977-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marvin Joel EscobarCarcamo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Escobar-Carcamo has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC. and Gift Surplus, LLC v. Sheriff of Onslow County, North Carolina, Hans J. MILLER, in his official capacity; State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick Lloyd (Pat) McCrory, in his official capacity; Secretary of The North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Frank Perry, in his official capacity; Director of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Bernard W. (B.W.) Collier, II, in his official capacity; Director or Branch Head of the Alcohol Law Enforcement Branch of the State Bureau of Investigation, Mark J. Senter, in his official capacity

No. 363A14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

S. C. Kitchen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Miller, Hans J. (in his official capacity).

George B. Hyler, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheville, Stephen P. Agan, Attorney at Law, for Gift Surplus, LLC.

Michael A. Grace, Attorney at Law, Christopher R. Clifton, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Sandhill Amusements, Inc.

Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Joy Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, for Senter, Mark J. (Branch Head) (in his official capacity).

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of December 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Withdrawn by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of February 2017 by Defendant for Leave to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
Dr. Robert CORWIN as Trustee for the Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust, on Behalf of a Class of Those Similarly Situated v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO PLC; Reynolds American, Inc.; Susan M. Cameron; John P. Daly ; Neil R. Withington; Luc Jobin; Sir Nicholas Scheele; Martin D. Feinstein; Ronald S. Rolfe; Richard E. Thornburgh; Holly K. Koeppel; Nana Mensah; Lionel L. Nowell, III; John J. Zillmer; and Thomas C. Wajnert

No. 56PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

*617Alan W. Duncan, Attorney at Law, Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jason M. Leviton, Attorney at Law, Joel A. Fleming, Attorney at Law, for Corwin, Robert (Dr.), et al.

Michael L. Robinson, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, H. Brent Helms, Attorney at Law, Gary A. Bornstein, Attorney at Law, for British American Tobacco PLC.

Ronald R. Davis, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, W. Andrew Copenhaver, Attorney at Law, James A. Dean, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Robert C. Micheletto, Attorney at Law, Thomas E. Lynch, Attorney at Law, Andrew S. Kleinfeld, Attorney at Law, for Reynolds American, Inc., et al.

James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Attorney at Law, Mark A. Nebrig, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Karen Seymour, Attorney at Law, Frank Schall, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jobin, Luc, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (British American Tobacco, PLLC) on the 17th of February 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th of February 2017 by Defendant (British American Tobacco, PLLC) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
John Fitzgerald MOORE, Jr. v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF HENDERSON COUNTY

No. 287P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

John David Noor, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Moore, John Fitzgerald (Jr.)

Charles Russell Burrell, Attorney at Law, for Board of Elections of Henderson County.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 22nd of August 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of August 2017 by Petitioner in this matter for Writ of Prohibition, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 22nd of August 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*681"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14318

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00211-MMH-TEM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOMINGO CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 30, 2014)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-14318 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Sylvia A. Irvin, counsel for Domingo Castro in this direct criminal appeal, 

has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Castro’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-14318 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
  
                          ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                     (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                              Year Ended December 31,
                                                                                ------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    1996               1995              1994
                                                                                ------------        ----------        ----------
<S>                                                                             <C>                 <C>               <C>
Net income                                                                         $113,111           $ 27,535         $  6,550
                                                                                   ========           ========         ======== 

Computation of weighted average common and
        common equivalent shares outstanding:
                Weighted average common shares outstanding                          116,723            103,998           88,961

                Common equivalent shares attributable to:
                      Stock options and warrants (treasury stock method)             11,086              7,364            5,622
                                                                                   --------           --------           ------ 
  

Shares used in computing net income per share                                       127,809            111,362           94,583
                                                                                   ========           ========           ====== 

Net income per share                                                               $   0.89           $   0.25         $   0.07
                                                                                   ========           ========         ======== 

</TABLE>
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 accompanying Report of Dolphin Digital Media, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William O’Dowd IV, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date: August 22, 2011
By:
/s/ William O’Dowd IVWilliam O’Dowd IVChief Financial Officer
Margaret Mary MCGUIRE, Plaintiff, v. Patrick Joseph MCGUIRE, Defendant.

No. COA17-432

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED. REMANDED IN PART.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1553

MOHAMED LAMINE DIAWARA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-504-480) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa I. Obot, LAW OFFICE OF THERESA I. OBOT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mohamed Lamine Diawara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Diawara challenges the IJ’s findings that his asylum application was untimely and he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances for an exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim or the merits of his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000); Zaidi v. Ashcroft , 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004). We also lack jurisdiction over Diawara’s challenges to the IJ’s denial of withholding of deportation and relief under the Convention Against Torture because he failed to properly exhaust these claims in his appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
^

2/17/2015

BENAVIDEZ, ALBERTO

On this day, the supplemental clerk's recorder)Response to the order issued by this

Court, has been received and presented tO-tfe/Court

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

©FFJDtii-8i£ilN55&-

STATE OF TEXA§'

PENALTY FOR' ' PRIVATE USE.*?/ «•* FEB 25 2015

Tr. Ct/No. 20090T^0l|^-^DFROM2,WR^22Cf-01

e>bv\t* ALBERTO B

Abel Acosta, Clerk

"V"-KiJ -filet U-Kf ^\<&> ^ \^