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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.S., Appellant 

and 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT, Charlotte, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1437 

Issued: November 2, 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 July 2, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a June 29, 2016 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The appeal was docketed as No. 16-1437. 

On review of the case record the Board finds the case must be remanded to OWCP. By 

decision dated March 10, 2016, OWCP found appellant had been paid compensation based on an 

incorrect weekly pay rate of $2,292.06 from July 18, 2013 to March 5, 2016. It found the correct 

pay rate was $2,129.81. The June 29, 2016 OWCP decision on appeal finalizes a March 16, 

2016 preliminary determination that an overpayment of $16,740.25 was created, based on use of 

an incorrect pay rate for compensation purposes. 

The Board reviewed the March 20, 2016 decision on a prior appeal. By decision dated 

July 27, 2016, the Board remanded the case to OWCP.1

 The Board found the evidence was 

insufficient to make a proper determination as to the correct pay rate for compensation purposes. 

It was noted that appellant had argued that he was in a “learner’s capacity” under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8113 at the time of injury on March 15, 2013, and therefore the pay rate should correspond to a 

probable higher wage-earning capacity upon completion of training. The Board found the case 

 1

 Docket No. 16-0881(issued July 27, 2016). 
2

was not in posture for decision, and additional development was required to properly determine 

appellant’s rate of pay. 

In view of the Board’s finding as to the pay rate, the June 29, 2016 overpayment decision 

is not in posture for decision. The correct pay rate has not been determined, and OWCP should 

properly develop the evidence in accord with the Board’s July 27, 2016 decision. Once a proper 

determination is made as to the correct pay rate, OWCP may then address an overpayment issue 

if necessary. The case will be remanded to OWCP to properly resolve the issues regarding pay 

rate and a possible overpayment of compensation. After such further development as is deemed 

necessary, OWCP should issue an appropriate decision. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated June 29, 2016 is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for 

further action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: November 2, 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
<PAGE> 1
                     STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY 
                    AND FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE


                                 Three months ended    Twelve months ended
                                     March 31,              March 31,
                                 ------------------   ---------------------
                                   1997      1996        1997       1996
                                 --------  --------   ---------- ----------
Net income as reported           $640,000  $539,000   $2,485,000 $1,928,000
                                 ========  ========   ========== ==========


PRIMARY:
  Common and common equivalent shares outstanding:
    Weighted average number of 
      common shares outstanding 3,161,359 3,096,472    3,120,433  3,085,801
    Common stock equivalents 
      from options computed on
      the treasury-stock method 
      using the estimated fair 
      market value of common 
      stock during the period     162,175   128,438      158,902    149,260
                                --------- ---------   ---------- ----------
    Shares used in the 
      computation               3,323,534 3,224,910    3,279,335  3,235,061
                                ========= =========   ========== ==========


  Primary net income per share      $0.19     $0.17        $0.76      $0.60
                                ========= =========   ========== ==========

<PAGE> 2
                                 Three months ended    Twelve months ended
                                     March 31,              March 31,
                                 ------------------   ---------------------
                                   1997      1996        1997       1996
                                 --------  --------   ---------- ----------
Net income as reported           $640,000  $539,000   $2,485,000 $1,928,000
                                 ========  ========   ========== ==========


FULLY DILUTED:
  Common and common equivalent shares outstanding:
    Weighted average number of 
      common shares outstanding 3,161,359 3,096,472    3,120,433  3,085,801
    Common stock equivalents 
      from options computed on
      the treasury-stock method 
      using the estimated fair 
      market value of common 
      stock at the end or during 
      the period (whichever was 
      higher)                     177,289   149,618      169,991    157,227
                                --------- ---------   ---------- ----------
    Shares used in the 
      computation               3,338,648 3,246,090    3,290,424  3,243,028
                                ========= =========   ========== ==========

  Fully diluted net income 
    per share                       $0.19     $0.17        $0.76      $0.59
                                ========= =========   ========== ==========
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack D. Massimino, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|/s/ Jack D. Massimino                                      
|Jack D. Massimino Chief Executive Officer
November 27, 2006
#### Steven Calzati et al., Respondents, v Kaufman Astoria Studios, Inc., Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 594]

In an action pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 for the entry of a judgment upon a default in the payment of an arbitration award, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated November 24, 1999, which denied its motion to vacate the judgment entered against it, upon its failure to pay the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the judgment entered against it pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 was procured as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, or other improper conduct on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Florio, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
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  accompanying  Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") of BV Pharmaceutical,  Inc., as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Art Bandenieks,  Chief Executive Officer of BV  Pharmaceutical,  Inc., hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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.


Dated: May 10, 2005                          /s/ ART BANDENIEKS
                                             ____________________________
                                                 Art Bandenieks
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4492 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4492

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the availability 
 of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under the TRICARE 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2014

  Mrs. Capps introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the availability 
 of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under the TRICARE 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TRICARE Moms Improvement Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT, SUPPLIES, AND COUNSELING 
              UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM.

    Section 1079(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(18) Breastfeeding support, supplies (including breast 
        pumps and associated equipment), and counseling shall be 
        provided as appropriate during pregnancy and the postpartum 
        period.''.
                                 <all>
```
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.04






















CONSENT OF ANTOINE YASSA







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2013 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2009 (the “Technical Study”) concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading “Item III – Description of the Business – Coulon Property – 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2013 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










			
	/S/ Antoine Yassa

	 
	 

	Name:

Antoine Yassa, P. Geo.

	 
	 









May 13, 2013
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4491 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to restore the 10-year statute of 

limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2014 

Mr. BUCHANAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to restore the 10- 

year statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt 

by administrative offset. 

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 Stop Punishing Inno5 cent Taxpayers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3716(e) of title 31, 

8 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(e) This section does not apply— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4491 IH

1 ‘‘(1) to a claim under this subchapter that has 

2 been outstanding for more than 10 years; or 

3 ‘‘(2) when a statute explicitly prohibits using 

4 administrative offset or setoff to collect the claim or 

5 type of claim involved.’’. 

6 (b) RETROACTIVITY.—In the administration of sec7 tion 3716(e) of title 31, United States Code, the following 

8 provisions of law shall be treated as if they had never been 

9 enacted: 

10 (1) Section 14219 of the Food, Conservation, 

11 and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–234; 122 

12 Stat. 1483), repealed as duplicative enactment by 

13 section 4 of Public Law 110–246 (7 U.S.C. 8701 

14 note). 

15 (2) Section 14219 of the Food, Conservation, 

16 and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246; 122 

17 Stat. 2245). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNION COUNTY v. TOWN OF MARSHVILLE

No. 411P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Karlene Scott Turrentine, S. C. Kitchen, Attorneys at Law, for Town of Marshville.

J. Daniel Bishop, Scott A. Hefner, Attorneys at Law, for Union County.

*102***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of October 2017 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 3, 2016

p0127

Order 

Clerk

February 3, 2016

151638 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151638

COA: 325048

Hillsdale CC: 01-259131-FH

LEE CHARLES BRADFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to amend is GRANTED. The application for 

leave to appeal the April 8, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.
CONSENT OF EXPERT


I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, Jeffrey Kulas, 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/ Jeffrey Kulas


Jeffrey Kulas, P. Geo.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 2, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

136226 (22) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

KELVIN DAVID MOFFIT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136226 

 COA: 281561 

CHIPPEWA CIRCUIT JUDGE,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $27.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$348.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 2, 2008 

Clerk
STATE v. Anthony Lee MCNAIR

230P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, For McNair, Anthony Lee.

Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Anthony Lee McNair, For McNair, Anthony Lee.

Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of November 2017 by Defendant for Final Defense:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
BMP SUNSTONE CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
  
    a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first
fiscal quarter of fiscal year 2008 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: January 23, 2009
    /s/ David GaoDavid GaoChief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20012 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ROBERTO MARTINEZ

- ALVAREZ, also known as Jose Alberto Martinez, also known as Jose Roberto Martine Alvarez, also known as Bladimir Rodriguez Tovar , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 494

- 1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Roberto Martinez

- Alvarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States
v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez

- Alvarez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

* 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 March 16, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20012 Document: 00512969436 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015No. 14

- 20012

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-20012 Document: 00512969436 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015