alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

1 Because Beale's case was pending before the Benefit

Review Board for over one year and did not receive formal review by

the Board by September 12, 1996, the decision of the Administrative

Law Judge was considered affirmed by the Board and the decision of

the ALJ became that of the Board. S ee Omnibus Consolidated UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60749

Summary Calendar

MILTON BEALE,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

HEMLERICH & PAYNE; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

OF PITTSBURGH; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board

(95-0577)

September 15, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel for the Petitioner petitions this Court for review of

a decision of the Benefits Review Board 1 affirming an order by theRescissions and Appropriations of 1996, Pub lic Law 104-134, 110

Stat. 1321.

2 administrative law judge consisting of a Decision and Order on

Reconsideration, all pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.

This Court's review is limited to determining whether the

Board's decision 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. I ngalls Shipbuilding v. Director,

Office of Workers' Compensation Progr ams , 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th

Cir. 1993). Substantial evidence is evidence that “ a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. The

substantial evidence standard is less demanding than that of a

preponderance of the evidence. A vondale Indust. v. Director,

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

, 977 F.2d 186, 189 (5th

Cir. 1992).

We have carefully reviewed the de cision of the ALJ, the

parties briefs and the arguments of counsel, and the record before

us, and conclude that the decision of the Benefits Review Board is

supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found that Beale’s

employer agreed to pay Beale’s medical costs prior to the hearing

and no controversy remained at the time of the he aring. Thus,

Petitioner’s counsel was not entitled to an award of attorneys’

fees. F lowers v. Marine Concrete Structures, Inc.

, 19 BRBS 162

(1986); Kleiner v. Todd Shipyar ds Corp. , 16 BRBS 297 (1984).3

Therefore, under the particular facts of this case, Beale's counsel

has failed to show that he is entitled to the attorneys' fees for

which he petitioned.

PETITION DENIED.
STATE v. Nicholas Nacoleon HARDING

116P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 11, 2018

Jason C. Yoder, Attorney at Law, for Harding, Nicholas Nacoleon.

Anne J. Brown, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of April 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of April 2018."
CONSENT OF EXPERT


I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, Sebastien Bernier, P.Geo., and the information that I reviewed and approved, as described or incorporated by reference in (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498, 333-196116 and 333-198092), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.


Dated this 22nd day of March, 2017.


Yours very sincerely,





/s/ Sebastien Bernier


Sebastien Bernier, P.Geo.  Principal Consultant (Resource Geology)  SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
Exhibit 4.48


ACT No. 58.045, OF MAY 5th, 2006.








THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES OF THE BRAZILIAN AGENCY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS - ANATEL,under the powers conferred upon him, pursuant to art. 135, c/c art. 190 and corresponding items, of the Internal Rules of the Brazilian Agency of Telecommunications - Anatel, approved by Resolution No. 270, of July 19th, 2001, and




WHEREAS the provisions of the Regulation of Collection of Public Price for the Right to use Radiofrequencies, approved by Resolution No. 387, of November 3rd, 2004, decides:




Art. 1 To authorize the use of radiofrequencies indicated in the table herein attached, without exclusive right, to INTELIG TELECOMUNICACOES LTDA, a certified company for the STFC (Landline Telephone Service), Region IV of the PGO (General Plan of Grants), up to January 22nd, 2019, to be used for the provision of the Landline Telephone Service for public use (STFC), object of Authorization Instruments Nos. 01/1999/SPB-ANATEL and 02/1999/SPB­-ANATEL, of January 21st, 1999.




Art. 2 The Public Price for the Right to use Radiofrequencies - PPDUR, authorized by this Act, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the referred Regulation, is R$ 520.00 (five hundred and twenty reais), as provided in the table herein attached.




Sole Paragraph: The effective use of radiofrequencies is subject to the collection of the value to be paid for the right to use radiofrequencies, or the payment of the first installment if under installment plan.




Art. 3 The Service Provider shall only use the radiofrequencies herein authorized after obtaining the licenses for the operation of the stations.




Art. 4 This Act shall be in force as of the date of its publication.


(There appears signature)GILBERTO ALVESSuperintendent of Public ServicesDeputy







PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL GAZETTE of 05/12/2006.

Page 66   Section 1.
COPY














ANNEX TO ACT No. 58.045, OF MAY 5th, 2006.




AUTHORIZED FREQUENCIES




NETWORK NUMBER
STATION

NUMBER
FREQUENCY
K
B

( KHz )
A

(Km2)
T2

(YEARS)
F(f)
HISTORICAL VALUE

(R$)
CALCULATED VALUE

(R$)
PPDUR VALUE

(R$)000034
0688277373
14.94200000 GHz
20
7000.000000
1.000000
13.00
0.00100
0.00
260.00
260.00000034
0688277403
14.52200000 GHz
20
7000.000000
1.000000
13.00
0.00100
0.00
260.00
260.00TOTAL VALUE
0.00
520.00
520.00





PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL GAZETTE of 05/12/2005.

Page 66   Section 1.
COPY
### Jft *r*%

JEFF L. ROSE, CHIEF JUSTICE DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE BOB PEMBERTON, JUSTICE MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE SCOTT K. FIELD, JUSTICE CINDY OLSON BOURLAND, JUSTICE
The Honorable Velva L. Price Civil District Clerk 

### Travis County Courthouse P.O.Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * 

# Court ofAppeals Third District ofTexas P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547 www. txcourls.gov/3rdcoa.aspx (512) 463-1733
JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK 

## rch4?201:

RE: Court ofAppeals Number: 03-13-00358-CV Trial Court Case Number: D-l-GN-12-003944 

### Style: AEP Texas Commercial & Industrial Retail Limited Partnership v. Public Utility Commission ofTexas; Alliance for Retail Markets; Texas Energy 

### Association for Marketers; CPL Retail Energy, LP; WTU Retail Energy, LP; and Direct Energy Business, LLC
Dear Honorable Velva L. Price: 

### The Third Court ofAppeals has issued the mandate in this cause. Therefore, I am returning the following original exhibits: Joint Exhibit 1 (1 box ofadministrative record). Very truly yours, 

### Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

### Filed in The District Court



### ofTravis County, Texas 

# MAR 122015 yt At M. 

### VelvaLPrice, DistrictClerk
#### Morris W. FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROSBY TYPESETTING COMPANY and International Typographical Union, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 76-1588.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 1, 1978.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 27, 1978.

Huey P. Mitchell, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Wm. O. Callaway, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex., for Crosby Typesetting Co.

Edward B. Cloutman, III, Dallas, Tex., for Intern’l Typographical Union.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, Morris Franklin, a discharged printer’s apprentice, brought this action against his union and his former employer, alleging that his employer and the union discriminated against him because of his race, and that his union failed to represent him adequately. He charged violations of his civil rights under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*42 U.S.C. § 1981, and, as to the union only, violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151*et seq.*After a non-jury trial the district court dismissed the complaint. We affirm for the reasons set forth by the district court in its memorandum opinion, reported at 411 F.Supp. 1167, 1976 N.D.Tex.

We think it helpful to add a few words to the district court’s discussion of the National Labor Relations Act contention. Franklin alleged that the union violated the duty of fair representation which it owed him. To constitute such a violation, the union’s actions-must have been arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. *Vaca v. Sipes,*1967, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 86 S.Ct. 1863, 16 L.Ed.2d 680. The district court construed the collective bargaining agree*1099ment to require a discharged employee to request written reasons for his discharge within 72 hours. Because Franklin failed to do this, the court ruled that the union could not have pressed his grievance under the contract.

Although the effect of the district court’s construction of the collective bargaining agreement was harsh, in the circumstances of this case we agree with the court’s disposition of the appellant’s argument. Franklin did not complain to the union about his discharge until 43 days after he was fired. The union then discussed his case with the employer. The employer, not the union, cited the 72-hour rule as a bar to consideration of Franklin’s complaint. Both the 43-day delay and the actions undertaken by the union on Franklin’s behalf show that the union’s response was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |        |  |                                  
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                        |  |        |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley               
|                        |  | Name:  |  | J. Roe Buckley                   
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer          
|                        |  |        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6882
CHARLES EDWARD COFFEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise M. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-hc-02047-FL) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Edward Coffey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles Edward Coffey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coffey v. Stansberry , No. 5:06-hc-02047-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2006). 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Michael C. Yerington, as President and Chief Executive 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael C. Yerington             
|Michael C. Yerington                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|December 7, 2007
#### Duane E. OWEN and Brandy B. Jennings, Appellants, v. Michael MOORE, Secretary of Florida Department of corrections, and State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 1D01-3006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 14, 2003.

Duane E. Owen, pro se; and Brandy B. Jennings, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Robert P. Elson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of appellants’ complaint. Pursuant to our ruling in *Osterback v. Turner,*837 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint prior to adjudicating the inmate to be indigent.

ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., Concur; WOLF, C.J., Dissents with opinion.

WOLF, C.J.,

Dissents.

While the trial court did not follow the law, any error was harmless. Pursuant to § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2002), no judgment shall be set aside or reversed for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless it appears that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party or results in a miscarriage of justice. *See also Mathers v. Botsford,*86 Fla. 40, 43, 97 So. 282, 283 (1923).

*352There is nothing to be gained by sending this ludicrous case back to the trial court. Whether or not these death row inmates are indigent, they have no substantial rights to, nor will they ever be entitled to, pornography in their prison cells. The alleged First Amendment violation will never be actionable. We are wasting the trial court’s time and resources by requiring it to deal further with this case.
The City of Charlotte, a municipal corporation v. University Financial Properties, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company f/k/a University Bank Properties Limited Partnership, a North Carolina limited partnership, et al.

No. 183P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nicolas E. Tosco, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Jonathan E. Hall, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The City of Charlotte.

Martin L. White, Attorney at Law, Susanne Todd, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for University Financial Properties, LLC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 23rd of May 2016 by Plaintiff 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# L_2012114EN.01001801.xml

| 26.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 114/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 114/18

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 24 April 2012

appointing a Luxembourg member of the Committee of the Regions

(2012/215/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Luxembourg Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Albert LENTZ, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Albert LENTZ,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Mr Ali KAES, Bourgmestre de la commune de Tandel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Ali KAES, Bourgmestre de la commune de Tandel.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 April 2012.

For the Council

The President

N. WAMMEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2334

MUSHTAQ MOHAMMAD,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 9, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard W. Chen, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, 

Lisa M. Damiano, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mushtaq Mohammad, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record, the transcript of Mohammad’s merits hearing, and Mohammad’s 

supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not 

compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See 

INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Mohammad (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2016). 

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 DENIED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors and Stockholder
of GreenPoint Credit, LLC



We have examined management's assertion about GreenPoint Credit, LLC's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
                                 --------------------------------------
Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999 included
----------------
in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is responsible for
GreenPoint Credit, LLC's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about GreenPoint Credit, LLC's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on GreenPoint Credit LLC's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that GreenPoint Credit, LLC complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all materials respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

January 18, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19608]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Notice of Appointment of Individuals To Serve as Members of 
Performance Review Boards

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Appointment of Individuals to serve as members of Performance 
Review Board.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Dates:  September 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri L. Buchholz, Director of Human 
Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission (202) 205-2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chairman of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has appointed the following individuals to serve on the 
Commission's Performance Review Board (PRB):

Chairman of PRB--Vice-Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun.
Chairman of PRB--Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman.
Member--Robert A. Rogowsky.
Member--Lyn M. Schlitt.
Member--Stephen A. McLaughlin.
Member--Lynn I. Levine.
Member--Robert G. Carpenter.
Member--Robert B. Koopman.
Member--James Lyons.
Member--Karen Laney-Cummings.

    This notice is published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Hearing-impaired individuals are 
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting 
our TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    By order of the Chairman:

    Issued: September 26, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-19608 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P