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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0168

Issued: December 1, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On November 8, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an April 9, 2020 decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0168.

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 April 9, 2020 decision was October 6, 2020. As appellant did 

not file an application for review with the Board until November 8, 2021,more than 180 days after 

the April 9, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0168 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. 

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

On appeal appellant requests that the 180-day time limit for filing an appeal be extended 

“due to COVID.” Pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Procedure, “The Board maintains discretion 

to extend the time period for filing an appeal if an applicant demonstrates compelling 

circumstances. Compelling circumstances means circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control 

that prevent the timely filing of an appeal and does not include any delay caused by the failure of 

an individual to exercise due diligence in submitting a notice of appeal.”

3

 Appellant only generally 

asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic was a complicating factor that prevented the timely filing 

of the appeal. He has not submitted evidence or argument sufficient to establish the inability to 

file a timely appeal. For this reason, the Board finds that this argument is insufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances as contemplated by the Board’s implementing regulation.4 Therefore, 

the appeal will be dismissed.

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

of their issuance.”

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0168 is dismissed.

Issued: December 1, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id.

4

Id.; see also L.M., Docket No. 21-1371 (issued October 26, 2021); S.S. Docket No. 10-1135 (issued 

June 23, 2010).

5

Id. at § 501.6(d).
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 June 30, 2007 (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: August 8, 2007
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 Implant Sciences Corporation., a
Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn D. Bolduc, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.




/s/
      Glenn D. BolducGlenn
      D. BolducChief
      Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial
OfficerDate:
      July 24, 2009







This
certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report of Gramercy Capital Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger M. Cozzi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ ROGER M. COZZI Name:  Roger M. Cozzi
Title:Chief Executive Officer


November 10,
2008

---



QuickLinks
#### H. J. B. Theatre Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Van Ree Publishing Corporation, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

January 28, 1936.

*L. Lawrence Green,*for the plaintiff.

*Henry C. Frey,*for the defendant.

Cupe, J.

Motion to strike out the first separate defense. The action is for libel. Plaintiff conducts a theatre and distributes cash to holders of lucky numbers each week. If the holder of the lucky number drawn is not in the theatre at the time the number is announced, the drawing is repeated at a later date and the prize ■increased by including the sum or sums unclaimed on other occasions. *39Defendant conducts a newspaper, and it published in a personal column the following: “ John Hoss of 101-24 113th Street won a hundred bucks from a 101st Avenue movie house recently — seems to me the theatre advertised that $150 was to be given away.” Plaintiff alleges that John Hoss won and received $150 and that the publication injured its reputation by stating that he received only $100. This motion to strike out a defense searches the complaint, for a defendant is not called upon to answer a bad complaint. An examination of the plaintiff’s cause of action reveals that it was conducting an ordinary lottery, which is a criminal offense.

The complaint must be dismissed. Motion to strike out the defense denied. Enter order dismissing the complaint.
|                    |  Sancon Resources Recovery, Inc. |                    |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    |                                  |                    |   |
| Date: November 15, 2010 | By:                                   | /s/ Jack Chen      |   |
|                    |                                  | Jack Chen               |   |
|                    |                                  | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |

|                    |   |                           |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                    |   |                           |   |
| Date: November 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Maggie Zhang          |   |
|                    |   | Maggie Zhang                   |   |
|                    |   | Acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                    |   |                           |   |

----
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, CRISFIELD, and LAWRENCE

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Misael ROMAN-MORALES

Culinary Specialist Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202000049

Decided: 23 September 2020

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judges: 

Ryan J. Stormer (arraignment)

Colleen M. Glasser-Allen (trial)

Sentence adjudged 24 October 2019 by a general court-martial convened at Washington Navy Yard, District of Columbia, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:

confinement for 24 years,1 reduction to E-1, total forfeitures, and a 

dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander R. Andrew Austria, JAGC, USN

 

1 The convening authority suspended confinement in excess of 19 years pursuant 

to a pretrial agreement.
United States v. Roman-Morales, NMCCA No. 202000049

Opinion of the Court

2

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.2

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

2 Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Frisco, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0437

Issued: May 7, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On February 1, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 20, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0437.

In a letter dated and received March 22, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0437 is dismissed.

Issued: May 7, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Maxwell Technologies, Inc.



|                                                     |  |                               
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|ENTITY                                               |  | STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
|Maxwell Technologies SA                              |  | Switzerland                   
|Maxwell Technologies Systems Division, Inc.          |  | California                    
|PurePulse Technologies, Inc.                         |  | Delaware                      
|I-Bus/Phoenix, Inc.                                  |  | California                    
|Maxwell Holding, GmbH (formerly I-Bus/Phoenix, GmbH) |  | Germany                       
|MML Acquisition, Inc.                                |  | Delaware                      
|Maxwell Technologies GmbH                            |  | Germany
#### COUNTY OF CLARK, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; JAMES G. RYAN, JAMES A. BRENNAN, MYRON LEAVITT, ROBERT N. BROADBENT and TOM WIESNER, County Commissioners of Clark County, Appellants, v. IRENE LUCAS, Respondent.

No. 7651

April 28, 1975

534 P.2d 499

*George Holt,*District Attorney, *Peter N. Reynolds,*Deputy District Attorney, and *Victor W. Priebe,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellants.

*Lee and Beasey,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*264OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Irene Lucas was first employed by the Clark County Clerk in June 1965. Her services at all times were apparently satisfactory. For a period of three years prior to this lawsuit she was assigned as the court clerk of one of the judicial departments in the Eighth Judicial District.

On January 20, 1970, while emotionally upset over a lost document involved in a difficult trial in her department, later to be completely absolved of blame, she wrote a letter of resignation which was delivered to the County Clerk, her superior. Although the County Clerk at some later date wrote her acceptance of the purported resignation, intervening events and conversations cast doubt upon the resignation or at least indicated withdrawal of it before it was accepted. She was not, however, permitted to return to work.

Mrs. Lucas sued the county for lost pay and other damages and was awarded judgment for $11,371.50. The trial court determined on the facts presented that she had not been properly notified of the acceptance of the resignation as required and thus the court found she was wrongfully discharged.1

Where a trial court sitting without a jury makes a determination upon conflicting evidence that determination will not be disturbed on appeal if it is suported by substantial evidence. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 89 Nev. 540, 516 P.2d 103 (1973).

The findings of the trial court in this case are supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

1

See County of Clark Personnel Manual, July 21, 1969.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36

                                [UPC Letterhead]

8th March 2001

Dear Charlie,

RE:   $1M HIRING COMMITMENT

I am writing in connection with the above outstanding issue.

The Board has clarified the commitment that was approved to be made to you on
joining the company. This is that on termination of your employment for any
reason other than gross misconduct, the company will pay in a cash bonus, any
shortfall between US$1,000,000 and your cumulative realised pre-tax gain on
exercise and sale of all vested options during your employment and within the
option exercise period after termination.

I would be grateful if you would confirm in writing your agreement to this
arrangement as a full and final conclusion to this issue by signing and
returning the enclosed copy of this letter.

Yours sincerely

/s/ Ton Tuijten

Ton Tuijten
Senior Vice President & General Counsel

                                                       AGREED & ACCEPTED

                                                       /s/ Charles Bracken

                                                       --------------------
                                                       Mr Charles Bracken

                                                       12/3/2001

                                                       --------------------
                                                       Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6100
CHRISTOPHER LASTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus B. G. COMPTON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-03-763-7) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Laster, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Laster, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Laster v. Compton , No. CA-03-763-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2003; Dec. 8, 2003). 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
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, FORT WORTH

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER,

Fort Worth, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1008

Issued: October 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 23, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from a purported June 21, 2021 decision of 

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

docketed the appeal as No. 21-1008.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

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

Act.1 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of 

OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal. 2 The most 

recent final adverse decision was issued by OWCP on March 12, 2020, which this Board 

affirmed in part and set aside in part on June 21, 2021 in Docket No. 20-1058. 3 As there is no 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days f rom the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3 By the June 21, 2021decision,the Board affirmed OWCP’s finding of fact of overpayment. However, the 

Board also set aside OWCP’s determination regarding the amount of the overpayment, finding that the case was not 

in posture for decision as to the period and amount of the overpayment. The Board remanded the ca se f or a new 

preliminary determination of overpayment and a de novo overpayment decision. See Docket No. 20-1058 (issued 

June 21, 2021).
2

final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, 

the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1008 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1008 is dismissed.

Issued: October 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
First Amend. to Employment Agt









EXHIBIT

10.9




 




FOURTH

AMENDMENT TO THE




1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




 




THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT to

the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan of CTN Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”),

a Delaware corporation formerly known as College Television Network, Inc.,

(this “Amendment”) is made effective as of the 6th day of

June, 2000 (the “Effective Date”). 

All capitalized terms in this Amendment have the meaning ascribed to

such terms in the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), unless

otherwise stated herein.




W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H:




WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company desires to amend the Plan to

change the name of the Company as it is referred to in the Plan.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises

contained herein, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:




1.             All references in the Plan to “College Television

Network, Inc.” are deleted, and the name “CTN Media Group, Inc.” is substituted

therefor in each instance.




2.             Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the

Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the

Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the Effective Date.




 




                                                                                                CTN Media Group, Inc.




 




 




	

  By:


  	

  /s/   Jason Elkin


  
	

   


  	

  Jason Elkin


  
	

   


  	

  Chief Executive

  Officer


  





ATTEST:




 




 




	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Patrick Doran


  
	

   


  	

  Patrick Doran, Secretary