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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0337

Issued: May 12, 2021

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 January 12, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a March 28, 2017 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0337.

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.2 

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.3

The 180th day following the March 28, 2017 decision was September 24, 2017. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until January 12, 2021, more than 180 days after 

 

1 The Board notes that appellant’s application for review (Form AB-1) requests an appeal from a purported 

December 9, 2020 decision. The case record as transmitted to the Board, however, does not contain a decision of that 

date. The last OWCP decision of record was the March 28, 2017 decision. 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

the March 28, 2017 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0337 is 

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

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.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0337 is dismissed.

Issued: May 12, 2021

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

 

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### IN RE: JOHN THOMAS NEWSOME

No. 741SC238

(Filed 17 April 1974)

Automobiles § 2— habitual offender statute — constitutionality

N. C. General Statutes, Article 8, Section 20 (G.S. 20-220 et seq.) dealing with habitual offenders of the motor vehicles laws is constitutional.

Appeal by the State from *Martin (Perry), Judge,*at the 3 December 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Dare County.

This action was instituted by the solicitor of the First Solic-itorial District pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes (G.S. 20-220 et seq.) to have respondent declared a habitual offender of the motor vehicle laws of this State and to have him barred from operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of this State. When the cause came on for hearing, the trial court ruled that Article 8 of Chapter 20 is unconstitutional and dismissed the action.

The State appealed pursuant to G.S. 15-179.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorneys General William B. Ray and William W. Melvin, for the State.*

*No counsel on appeal for respondent-appellee.*

BRITT, Judge.

Did the trial court err in ruling that Article 8 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes of North Carolina is unconstitutional and dismissing the action?

The question was answered in the affirmative in *State v. Carlisle,*20 N.C. App. 358, 201 S.E. 2d 704 (1974), wherein this court upheld the constitutionality of said Article; the decision of this court was affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on 10 April 1974. No useful purpose would be served in repeating here the reasoning given in *Carlisle.*

In fairness to the able trial judge, who was also the trial judge in *Carlisle,*we point out that the opinion in *Carlisle*was filed on 9 January 1974, subsequent to the entry of judgment in this cause on 3 December 1973.

*346For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for hearing.

Reversed.

Judges Hedrick and Carson concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                            Year Ended December 31,
                     (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            2000        1999                  1998
                                                                   -----------------------
                                           Actual      Actual       Actual      Pro Forma
                                          --------    --------     --------     ----------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>
Basic

Net Income (loss)                            (840)     (1,832)        (560)          (560)
  Weighted average shares                     769         688           55            665
------------------------------------      --------    --------     --------     ----------
Basic Earnings (Loss) per share             (1.09)      (2.66)      (10.16)         (0.84)
====================================      ========    ========     ========     ==========

Diluted

Net Income (Loss)                            (840)     (1,832)        (560)          (560)
  Weighted average shares                     769         688           55            665
------------------------------------      --------    --------     --------     ----------
Diluted Earnings (Loss) per share           (1.09)      (2.66)      (10.16)         (0.84)
====================================      ========    ========     ========     ==========

</TABLE>
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5099 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5099 EH

1 SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, 

4 Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mi5 chael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

7 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5099 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostRothberg Post Office’’. Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. al Service located at 15 South Main Street in
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4724 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4724

  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit the 
          conversion of leadership PAC funds to personal use.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2010

 Mr. Capuano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit the 
          conversion of leadership PAC funds to personal use.

    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 ``Leadership PAC Limitation Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONVERSION OF LEADERSHIP PAC FUNDS TO PERSONAL USE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 313(b)(1) of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 439a(b)(1)) is amended by inserting 
after ``subsection (a)'' the following: ``or funds of a leadership PAC 
(as defined in section 304(i)(8)(B))''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to elections occurring on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, VIRGIN 

ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, St. John, VI, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0218

Issued: July 8, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 1, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from a May 28, 2020 nonmerit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0218.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

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

(FECA).

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 May 28, 2020 decision was November 24, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until December 1, 2020, more than 180 days after the May 28, 

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0218 is untimely filed. 

 

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

The Board, therefore, is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a 

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

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final, adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the December 1, 2020 filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the 

appeal docketed as No. 21-0218 must be dismissed.3 Accordingly.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0218 is dismissed.

Issued: July 8, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at 

§ 501.6(d).
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31993D0530

**93/530/EEC: Commission Decision of 15 October 1993 amending Decision 93/387/EEC laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Morocco***Official Journal L 258 , 16/10/1993 P. 0032 - 0032 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 53 P. 0034  Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 53 P. 0034*

COMMISSION DECISION of 15 October 1993 amending Decision 93/387/EEC laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Morocco

(93/530/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF  THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 

 Having regard to Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs (1), and in particular Article 9 (4) thereof, 

 Whereas Commission Decision 93/287/EEC of 7 June 1993 laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinorderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Morocco (2) establishes the list of the dispatch establishments  approved for export to the European Community; 

 Whereas the Moroccan competent authorities officially approved additional dispatch establishments in accordance with Article 9 (3) (c) of Directive 91/492/EEC; 

 Whereas point I of Annex C to Decision 93/387/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly; 

 Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, 

 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: 

Article 1 

 Point I in Annex C to Decision 93/387/EEC is hereby replaced as follows: 

 'I. Dispatch establishments

 /* Tables: see OJ */     

This Decision is addressed to the Member States. 

 Done at Brussels, 15 October 1993. 

 For the Commission

 René STEICHEN

 Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 1. 

 (2) OJ No L 166, 8. 7. 1993, p. 40.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5341 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2010 

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

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post Office Building’’. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5341 RFS

1 SECTION 1. JOYCE ROGERS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, 

4 Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Joyce 

5 Rogers Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.42

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

AMOUNT: $200,000.00                                         DATE: MAY 2, 2000

Twenty eight days after date of receipt, for value received, the undersigned
(jointly and severally if more than one) promise(s) to pay to the order of:

                                 AccuRec LLC.

The sum of two hundred thousand dollars plus an interest equal to (8% annually)
               ------------------------
payable at any place the holder may so designate. Interest to be paid at loan
pay off time.

The undersigned and any endorser or guarantors herefore, jointly and severally,
hereby agree that upon default in payment of performance of this note, or the
death, or any act of insolvency or bankruptcy on the part of any of them,
however expressed or indicated, then this note shall, at the option of the
holder, become immediately due and payable without presentment, demand, protest
or further attorney and/or agent of the holder, and the undersigned, and any
endorser or guarantors, jointly and severally, agree to pay all collection
costs, expenses, agents' fees, and reasonable attorney's fees.

The undersigned further states if he should default on said loan, the lender
shall be authorized to place a lien on the following collateral:

                     1. All properties of Color Image, Inc

Borrowers Signature:                              Address:

/s/ Sueling Wang                                  4350 Peachtree Ind. Blvd. #100
-----------------------------------------
Sueling Wang, President Color Image, Inc.         Norcross, GA 30071


/s/ Ann Shieh  /s/ Larry Lyu
-----------------------------------------
Witness
#### ROBERT E. WILLIFORD v. EDNA WOLFE WILLIFORD

No. 7119SC122

(Filed 24 February 1971)

Appeal and Error § 39— dismissal of appeal

The Court of Appeals dismisses an appeal for the failure of appellant to docket the record on appeal within the time allowed by the Rules of Practice. Court of Appeals Rule No. 5.

Appeal by defendant from *Long, Superior Court Judge,*22 June 1970 Session of Superior Court held in Rowan County.

This action was heard on an order to plaintiff to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court for failing to make certain support payments agreed to in a separation agreement and included by consent in a judgment for absolute divorce. From an adverse ruling dated 2 July 1970, defendant gave notice of appeal. The appeal entries are dated 2 July 1970.

*Williford, Person & Canady by N. H. Person for plaintiff appellee.*

*Miller, Beck & O’Briant by G. E. Miller for defendant appellant.*

*542MALLARD, Chief Judge.

This case was not docketed in the Court of Appeals until 17 December 1970. Under Rule 5, absent an order extending the time (not to exceed sixty days), the record on appeal should have been docketed in the Court of Appeals within ninety days after 2 July 1970. In this record there is no order extending the time for docketing the record on appeal. For failure to docket the record on appeal within the time allowed by the rules, this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Parker and Graham concur.
HAMLET H.M.A., LLC v. HERNANDEZ

425A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 5, 2019

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, for Hernandez, Pedro (M.D.).

William S. F. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Rebecca C. Huntington, Attorney at Law, for Hamlet H.M.A., LLC D/B/A Sandhills Regional Medical Center.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 4th of March 2019 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of March 2019."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 29th day of March 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,217,527
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,993,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                   209,956
<INVENTORY>                                    329,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,462,573
<PP&E>                                         2,179,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,077,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,591,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,487,616
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       32,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,563,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,591,777
<SALES>                                        16,397,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,397,060
<CGS>                                          8,242,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,047,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             90,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,149,201
<INCOME-TAX>                                   499,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            650,201
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   650,201
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .21


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2006 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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 results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO 
|Emanuel N. Hilario     
|Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 9, 2006