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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEW BRAUNFELS 

POST OFFICE, New Braunfels, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0156

Issued: November 24, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 18, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from an August 26, 2019 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0156.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the August 26, 2019 decision was February 22, 2020. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until August 18, 2020, more than 180 days after the

August 26, 2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0156 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0156 is dismissed.

Issued: November 24, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1347

___________ Alfredo Perez Pena, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District of * Minnesota. Red Wing Shoe Co., A Minnesota * Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 1999 Filed: November 1, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alfredo Perez Pena appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment that dismissedhis claim of racial discrimination in hiring against Red Wing Shoe Company brought under

Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Pena also appeals the district court's denial of his motion to compel a response to discovery and the award of sanctions imposed for bringing that motion. We have reviewed the parties' briefsand the record, and we affirm the dismissal of the claim on the basis of the wellreasoned order of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also affirm the denial of-2-

the discovery motion and the award of sanctions on the basis of the magistrate judge's thorough order as affirmed by the district court. See id. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

Calendar No. 451 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5051 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, 

as the ‘‘Zachary Smith Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Zachary 

7 Smith Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5051 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, or other record of the United States 

3 to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 

4 to be a reference to the ‘‘Zachary Smith Post Office Build5 ing’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 451 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5051 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice Building’’. Hornell, New York, as the ‘‘Zachary Smith Post al Service located at 23 Genesee Street in 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. Fair Wayne BRYANT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2079.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Bryant, Fair, Wayne;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial *1011Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 185,469; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. KH 02-36503.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J.,

would grant the writ to consider whether the inhabited dwelling as defined in La. R.S. 14:62.2 includes a storage shed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

April 28, 2014

h0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148248 & (57)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148248

COA: 310706

Wayne CC: 11

- 004936

- FC

PAUL ANTHONY DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2013

judgment 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. The motion to

remand is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Michael P. ODonnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Xerium Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Xerium Technologies,
Inc. (the Registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

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. 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; and

c. Disclosed in this report any
change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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; and

b. 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:
August 11, 2006



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael P. ODonnell                            
|Michael P. ODonnell                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
JONES v. SLAGLE, et al.

421P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Gregory H. Jones, Wilmington, for Jones, Gregory H.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of November 2018 by Petitioner for Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee meeting date change.

# SUMMARY:

                        On                         *Monday, August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48937)*                         the Department of Defense announced open meetings of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Manufacturing Technology. The November 2005 meeting dates have been revised from November 2-3, 2005 to November 2, 2005 only. The task force will meet in closed session. The meeting will be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        LTC Scoot Dolgoff, USA, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at                         *scott.dolgoff@osd.mil,*                         or via phone at (703) 571-0087.                    

Dated: October 17, 2005.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 05-21111 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0557

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STEPHANIE DAWN BLANK,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Purs uant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable John W. Larson , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 12 2024

06/12/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0557
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Adam Shaffer,****certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of eCOST.com, Inc.;

2.         Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this ** **report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.         Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)        designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)         evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)         disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant'sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.         Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)         allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)         any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.
#### STATE ex rel. Noel BERNIARD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2003-KH-1999.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Berniard, Noel (Pro Se);—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 01-*10284929; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KH-668.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 RTI International Metals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2005 and as amended on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy G. Rupert, 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, 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

                                                  /s/ TIMOTHY G. RUPERT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Timothy G. Rupert
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


December 15, 2005



* This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
  subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
  purpose.
#### In the Matter of Robert E. Harris, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[719 NYS2d 172]

] Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1971 and maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Albany.

Respondent moves to disaffirm a Referee’s report insofar as it sustained charges of professional misconduct against him. Petitioner cross-moves to confirm the report insofar as it sustained charges and to disaffirm the report insofar as it failed to sustain certain other charges.

Respondent charged a client who had retained him in a criminal matter a fixed advance fee secured by an affidavit of confession. The fee arrangement compromised the client’s unqualified right to discharge respondent at any time and constituted an improper fee in violation of this Court’s attorney disciplinary rules *(see,*Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106 [22 NYCRR 1200.11]; *see also, Matter of Cooperman,*83 NY2d 465; *Engster v Passonno,*202 AD2d 769; *Matter of Kauffman,*99 AD2d 640). Respondent also failed to provide the client with a proper accounting *(see,*DR 9-102 [c] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.46 (c) (3)]) and failed to timely reply to petitioner’s requests for information *(see,*DR 1-102 [a] [5], [7] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5), (7)]).

Respondent is a criminal trial attorney who has also served part-time as an Assistant Albany County District Attorney and Assistant Albany County Public Defender. He has expressed contrition for his misconduct.

In view of the above, we conclude that respondent should be censured *(see, e.g., Matter of Kauffman, supra).*We also direct respondent to complete, within one year from the date of this decision, six credit hours of accredited continuing legal education in ethics and professionalism in addition to the accredited continuing legal education required of all attorneys *(see,*22 NYCRR part 1500; *Matter of Roosa,*273 AD2d 535). Respondent is directed to report completion of the courses to petitioner.

Spain, J. P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent is found guilty of the profes*695sional misconduct set forth in charge I of the petition insofar as it alleged an improper fee arrangement, in charge II as stated in specification 2, and in charge III as stated in specification 1; and it is further ordered that the motions by petitioner and respondent are granted and denied in accordance with said finding of guilt; and it is further ordered that respondent is censured; and it is further ordered that respondent shall complete six credit hours of accredited continuing legal education in ethics and professionalism, as set forth in this decision.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1606-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-1606-DR), dated September 24, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 30, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 24, 2005:

Angelina, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, and Walker Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-20283 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### Clarence C. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-4300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2003.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Archie F. Gardner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); *State v. Casner,*825 So.2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); *Davis v. State,*704 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

KAHN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.