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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0933

Issued: June 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 31, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an October 22, 2021 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0933.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that it 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 October 22, 2021 decision was April 20, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until May 31, 2022, more than 180 days after the

October 22, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0933 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 

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

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

OWCP within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 22-0933, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0933 is dismissed.

Issued: June 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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. ” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
No. 76-102.

#### Ringe *v.*United States.

Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15a-14(b) and Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in
its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



| | (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 the Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                |  |                                                                                  |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: March 1, 2013 |  |  |  | By:                                                            |  | /s/ Ron E. Hooper                                                               
|                    |  |  |  |                                                                |  | Ron E. Hooper,
Senior Vice President, Royalty Management and Trust
Administrator

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and will be retained by the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PATRICK LAMONTE HICKSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 48 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
   ZiLOG, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-108372, No. 333-114501, and No.
333-114503) on Form S-8 of ZiLOG, Inc., of our report dated June 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ZiLOG, Inc.,
as of March 31, 2009 and March 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
March 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of ZiLOG, Inc.

ARMANINO MCKENNA LLP

San Ramon, California
   June 27, 2009

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-126-CV

MARCUS J. KIRBY AND ANTOINETTE	APPELLANTS	

BACKHAUS D/B/A MARCUS & COMPANY

	V.

RON RITTENHOUSE D/B/A AMERIFLEET	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the parties’ “Motion For Dismissal.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  May 3, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7591

DWIGHT M. SUTTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; RICHARD A.

LANHAM, JR., Commissioner for the Maryland

Division of Corrections; LLOYD L. WATERS,

Warden, Maryland Correctional InstitutionHagerstown,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-96-

953-PJM)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight M. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sutton

v. Maryland Div. of Correction, No. CA-96-953-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 28,

1996). 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; we deny

the motion to appoint counsel.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.1

June 22,2001

Blue Heron Venture Fund, Ltd. Nassau, New Providence, The Bahamas

Dear Sir(s):

The undersigned, being the Chairman of CyPost Corporation (me "Company" or
"CyPost"), hereby acknowledge the following resolutions passed at the June
22nd., 2001 board meeting

Be it resolved, that the Company has received written notification (letter
attached) on June 18,2001 from Blue Heron Venture Fund, Ltd. to assign the
current loan in the amount of TWO MILLION EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND US DOLLARS
($2,085,000) plus the accrued interest of EIGHT PERCENT (8%) as calculated as of
the date of June 18,2001 (calculation attached). As per; the above stated
notification, Blue Heron Venture Fund, Ltd. requests the transfer of the loan
amount plus the accrued interest owed by the Company to its shareholders. In
doing this the Company shall issue new promissory notes to the shareholders of
Blue Heron Venture Fund, Ltd. and cancellation of the existing Promissory Notes
(list attached of outstanding notes)


                                           Loan Amount     Accrued Interest
Bayshore Trading, LTD./, LTD U.S.         $  247,427.70      $ 73,9.58.30
Berkshire Capital Management Co., lnc     $  107,015.20         32,165.98
Joseph A. Fiore                           $  107,015.20         32,165.99
Amanda E. Johnson                         $  107,015.20         32,165.99
James A. Mylock Jr.                       $  107,015.20         32,165.99
John M. Peragine                          $  107,015.20         32,165.99
Monet Management Group. LTD.
To be assigned to Kelly Shane Montalban   $1,302,496.30

                                          $2,085,000.00      $ 234,788.24
                                          -------------------------------

Be it resolved, that the company has received written notification (1etter
attached) on June 18,2001 from Blue Heron Venture Food, Ltd. to distribute the
4,285,000 shares (registered and non-registered) of CyPost to its shareholders
below.

Bayshore Trading, LTD. , L TD. U.S                       457,259 shares
Mr. U.K. Menon                                           914,526 shares
Berkshire Capital Management Co., Inc.                   582,643 shares
-Joseph A. Fiore                                         582,642 shares
Amanda. E. Johnson                                       582,642 shares
James A. Mylock Jr.                                      582,642 shares
John M. Peragine                                         582,642 shares

A facsimile transmission here of signed by the undersigned will be sufficient to
establish the signature of the undersigned  and to constitute  the  concurrence
and consent in writing of the undersigned to the foregoing.

In witness where of  the  undersigned has signed this instrument

/s/ Robert Sendoh
-----------------
Robert Sendoh
Chairman of the Board
CyPost Corporation


<PAGE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL ADVISORY CENTER,

Fort Shafter, HI , Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0733

Issued: May 27, 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 March 2, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an August 19, 20141 decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0733.

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 August 19, 2014 decision was February 15, 2015. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until March 2, 2021, more than 180 days after the

 

1 Although appellant indicated that he was appealing from an October 28, 2012 decision, the Board notes that there 

is no OWCP decision issued on that date. The only OWCP decision of record is dated August 19, 2014.

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

August 19, 2014 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0733 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. 21-0733 is dismissed.

Issued: May 27, 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 THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SAMIR PRICE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 294 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of January, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20665]



[[Page 60383]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing, Region II 
Regulatory Fairness Board

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region II Regulatory 
Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a 
public hearing on Wednesday, October 26, 2005, at 9 a.m. The meeting 
will take place at the New Jersey District Office, 2 Gateway Center, 
15th Floor, Newark, NJ to receive comments and testimony from small 
business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit 
organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions 
taken by Federal agencies.
    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact 
Claudia Yarborough, in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the 
agenda. Claudia Yarborough, Paralegal Specialist, SBA, New Jersey 
District Office, 2 Gateway Center, 15th Floor, New Jersey, NJ 07102-
5003, phone (973) 645-3974, fax (202) 481-0830, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0f3dcd1c5d4d9d19ee9d1c2d2dfc2dfc5d7d8f0c3d2d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0b39c9185949991dea99182929f829f859798b0839291de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, see our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20665 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6851

WILLIAM HOWARD FREEMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-402-AM)

Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Howard Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Howard Freeman seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 51-2005]


Foreign-Trade Zone 202- Los Angeles, California, Request for 
Processing Authority, Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc. (Watches)

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by the Port of Los Angeles, California, grantee of FTZ 202, 
requesting authority on behalf of Citizen Watch Company of America, 
Inc. (Citizen) for the processing and packaging of watches under FTZ 
procedures within Site 7 of FTZ 202 in Torrance, California. The 
application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-
Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of 
the Board (15 Cfr part 400). It was formally filed on October 19, 2005.
    Citizen operates a distribution facility (182 employees) for the 
warehousing, packaging and distribution of watches. The company's 
application indicates that the duty rates for finished watches range 
from duty-free to 6 percent (ad valorem equivalent). Foreign-sourced 
inputs include imported gift boxes, watch bands, watch cases and other 
materials with duty rates ranging from duty-free to 20 percent.
    This application requests authority to allow Citizen to conduct 
activities under FTZ procedures, which would exempt the company from 
Customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export 
activity. On its domestic sales, the company would be able to choose 
the duty rate that applies to finished products for the foreign 
components noted above. Citizen's application indicates that the 
savings from zone procedures could help improve the company's 
international competitiveness.
    Public comment on the application is invited from interested 
parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to 
the Board's Executive Secretary at the following addresses:
1. Submission Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building - 
Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St., NW, Washington, DC 20005; or
2. Submission Via the U.S. Postage Service: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB - Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    The closing period for their receipt is December 27, 2005. Rebuttal 
comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period 
may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to January 9, 
2006.
    A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be 
available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above, and 
at the Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 11150 West 
Olympic Blvd., Suite 975, Los Angeles, CA 90064.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21386 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5390 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5390

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``David John Donafee Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DAVID JOHN DONAFEE POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``David John Donafee Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``David John 
Donafee Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### DOROTHY E. M. WERNER, Appellant, v. SHOSHONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 7702

May 13, 1975

535 P.2d 161

[Rehearing denied June 12, 1975]

*Charles E. Springer, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Echeverría and Osborne, Chartered,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The appellant’s contention on appeal is that proof of actual damages is not an essential part of a plaintiff’s case under the doctrine of strict liability in tort in the area of products liability. The appeallant fails to cite any authority for this claimed error and as such this court need not consider it. Bradshaw v. General Electric Co., 91 Nev. 124, 531 P.2d 1358 (1975); General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366*287(1972). Further, such a contention is without merit for actual injury must be shown to recover on a theory of strict liability in tort and mere nominal' damages to vindicate a technical right are insufficient. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970); Shoshone Coca-Cola v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966).

Affirmed.