alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

B RUCE J. CARR

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below, Appellee

. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 50,2020

Court Below: Superior Court
of the State of Delaware

C r. I.D. No. 82002234DI

Submitted: July 6, 2020
Decided: July 23 , 2020

O R D E R

On March 12, 2020, t he Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice , sent by certified

mail, directing the appellant, Bruce Carr, to show cause why his appeal should not

be dismissed for his failure to pay the Supreme Court filing fee or file a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis . On March 16, 2020, the Court received the certified mail

receipt indicating that the notice to show cause had been delivered. A tim ely

response to the notice to show cause would have been due on or before March 23,

2020. Under the Court’s emergency orders that extended filing deadlines due to the

COVID

- 19 pandemic, the deadline for Carr’s response to the notice to show cause

was exte nded through July 1, 2020. Carr has not responded to the notice to show2 cause, nor has he paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

.

Dismissal of the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, unde r Supreme Court Rule s 3(b) (2)

and 29(b) , that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ T amika R

. M ontgomery -R eeves Justice
Exhibit 31.1



I, Steven R. Lewis, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of First Place Financial Corp.;



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(s) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the 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: September 29, 2003             
|                                     
|/s/ Steven R. Lewis                  
|Steven R. Lewis                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21285]



[[Page 61606]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award will meet Monday, November 14, 2005, 9 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m.; Tuesday, November 15, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, 
November 16, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, November 17, 2005, 
and Friday, November 18, 2005, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The Judges Panel is 
composed of ten members prominent in the field of quality management 
and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting 
is to review and make recommendations regarding the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award program, processes, and procedures within the 
guidelines set forth by the Baldrige Program's Board of Overseers.

DATES: The meeting will convene November 14, 2005 at 9 a.m. and adjourn 
at 3 p.m. on November 18, 2005. The entire meeting will be closed.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Room A1038, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National 
Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will include review of the site 
visit process, review the final judging process and meeting procedures, 
review of feedback discussion approach with site visit team leaders, 
final judging of 2005 applicants, learning and improvements for 2006 
judging cycle, update on the 2006 program and review 2006 judges 
calendar. The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the 
concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on December 20, 
2004, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to 
Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, 
as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. 
L. 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of Award applicant 
data from U.S. companies and a discussion of this data as compared to 
the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, may be 
closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, 
United States Code, because the meetings are likely to disclose trade 
secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person 
which is privileged or confidential.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
William Jeffrey,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-21285 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) by OptimumBank
Holdings, Inc. (the Company), I, Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                 |  |  |  |     |  |                                           
|----- |  | --------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | August 13, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard L. Browdy                     
|      |  |                 |  |  |  |     |  | Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer
1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

____________________________________) HA SSA N B IN AT TA SH ) ) Petitioner , ) ) Ci vilAc ti on N o. 05 -1 59 2 ( RC L) v . )

) BA RA CK

OBA M A, e t a l. ) ) Re sp ond e nts . ) ____________________________________) OR DE R After conductinga ca se mana g ement conf ere nce on F ebrua

ry 3, 2009, and consulting

w i thg o v e r

n m e n tan d

p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c o un s e l , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED that, by

Fe bruar y 24, 2009, the g overnme nt shall complete produc tion and notice re quired unde r §§ I .D.1 and I .E.1 of the Case Manag ement Or der e ntere d on November 6, 2008 and ame nded on De cembe r 16, 2008. It is further ORDERED that the g overnme nt shall produce a ll ex culpatory evidenc e by

Fe bruar y 24, 2009. I t is further ORDERED that the petitioner sha ll file his discovery motion by

Marc h 9, 2009. The reply and opposition to the discovery motion shall be filed in acc ordanc e with the L ocal Rules and the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. SO ORDERED.

Signed by Chief J udg e Royce C. L amber th on Febr

uary 3, 2009.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RICHMOND POST 

OFFICE, Richmond, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0135

Issued: November 29, 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 1, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an October 29, 2020 decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0135.

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 October 29, 2020 decision was April 27, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 1, 2021, more than 180 days after the

October 29, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0135 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. 22-0135 is dismissed.

Issued: November 29, 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. at § 501.6(d).
#### A. Raymond Johnson, Plaintiff, *v.*Samuel J. Lasser, as Assignee of Wright Metal, Inc., for the Benefit of Its Creditors, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

March 13, 1936.

*Matthew M. Dunne [Robert C. Killough, Jr.,*of counsel], for the plaintiff.

*G. M. Blackmon,*for the defendant.

Bergan, J.

Defendant is the assignee for benefit of creditors of Wright Metal, Inc. The assignment having been filed in the office of the clerk of Chautauqua county, the County Court of that county *347is vested with the supervision and control over the assignee (Debtor and Creditor Law, art. 2), and may exercise the powers conferred by section 15 of that act. The measure of the powers of the assignee, however, is the assignment itself. *(Matter of Lewis,*81 N. Y. 421.)

The assignee entered into a contract with this plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, is not one of the creditors for whose benefit the assignment was executed, but is a direct creditor of the assignee, acting as such. The assignee, unlike a receiver, does not derive his power and rights from the statute or from the court, but from the assignment, and the statutory provisions are not the source of, but merely regulate the exercise of his functions. This regulating power cannot be construed as granting an assignee immunity from actions at law upon contracts with persons with whom he deals as assignee, or to require that they submit to the jurisdiction of the court which exercises statutory supervision over his proceedings. Conversely, it was said in *Matter of Lewis (supra), “*The courts, therefore, cannot direct him to pay a debt of the assignor, or give it preference, in violation of the terms of the assignment.”

*Hynes*v. *Alexander*(2 App. D v. 109), in which equitable relief by way of an accounting was sought, is not controlling. There it was held relief at law existed which precluded intervention by a court in equity. That case did not turn upon a jurisdictional question.

This is an action at law. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain such an action cannot be abridged by statute. (State Const, art. VI, § 1.) It has been said that a similar statute conferring jurisdiction upon County Courts over assignees of creditors does not preclude this court from entertaining an action in equity for an accounting. *(Hurth*v. *Bower,*30 Hun, 151.)

This court, therefore, should assume jurisdiction. The complaint states a cause of action and the motion to dismiss it is denied.

There is no real issue on the facts. That the unpaid balance due plaintiff is $843.49 as set forth in plaint iffs affidavit on his motion for summary judgment is not sufficiently denied by the affidavit of defendant to present an issue as to the amount.

The motion of plaintiff for summary judgment is granted and judgment may be entered in favor of plaintiff for $843.49, with costs and ten dollars costs of this motion.

Submit order.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61784-61785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21345]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 
constitutes notice of the upcoming meeting of the Grain Inspection 
Advisory Committee (``the Committee'').

DATES: November 1, 2005, 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and November 2, 2005, 
7:30 a.m. to Noon.

ADDRESSES: The Advisory Committee meeting will take place at the Omni 
Corpus Christi Hotel Bayfront and Marina, 900 North Shoreline 
Boulevard, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401.
    Requests to address the Committee at the meeting or written 
comments may be sent to: Deputy Administrator, GIPSA, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 3604, Washington, 
DC 20250-3614. Requests and comments may also be faxed to (202) 690-
2755.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Terri Henry, (202) 205-8281 
(telephone); (202) 690-2755 (facsimile).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Committee is to provide 
advice to the Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration with respect to the implementation of the 
U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.).
    The agenda will include a status report on the reauthorization of 
the U.S. Grain Standards Act, financial update of grain inspection user 
fee programs, progress report on re-engineering of domestic operations, 
overview of standards and future plans, and other general Agency 
issues.
    For a copy of the agenda please contact Terri Henry, (202) 205-8281 
(telephone); (202) 690-2755 (facsimile) or by e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d98dbcababb0f795f791bcb7aba099acaabdb8f7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e7a4b5c5c47006200664b405c576e5b5d4a4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Public participation will be limited to written statements, unless 
permission is received from the Committee Chairman to orally address 
the Committee. The meeting will be open to the public.

[[Page 61785]]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 
communication of program information or related accommodations should 
contact Terri Henry, at the telephone number listed above.

James E. Link,
Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-21345 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of theundersigned officers does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to suchofficers knowledge:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Authority.

 
| By:                     | /s/ SHAWN S. SMYTH     |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Shawn S. Smyth          |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2008    |
|                    |                   |
| By:                     | /s/ JOSEPH R. CALLAHAN |   |   |
| Joseph R. Callahan      |                   |
| Chief Financial Officer |                   |
| August 14, 2008    |                   |
|                         |                        |        |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the RiverRock Entertainment Authority and will be retained by the Authority andfurnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA, 

CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, 

West Haven, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0275

Issued: January 28, 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 December 14, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from an April 28, 2020 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0275.

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 28, 2020 decision was October 25, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until December 14, 2020, more than 180 days after the

April 28, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0275 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant’s reason to 

 

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

explain the failure to timely file an appeal, i.e., his inability to secure a physician during the 

COVID-19 pandemic, is insufficient to establish compelling circumstances.3

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. 21-0275 is dismissed.

Issued: January 28, 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

 

3 Appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: The 

Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final 

decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### F.P.D., INC., a Nevada Corporation, dba FAMOUS PERFUMES DISTRIBUTORS, Appellant, v. ZEBA NELL LONG, dba LONG DISTRIBUTING SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 7375

January 17, 1974

518 P.2d 155

*Embry & Shaner,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*David Canter,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On or about May 21, 1968, Zeba Nell Long and F.P.D., Inc., entered into a “Distributor Agreement” giving Mrs. Long *28the right to act as the appellant’s exclusive distributor in Lubbock County, Texas. Mrs. Long purchased fifty counter vendors and a large number of “samplettes” from the appellant which she thereafter placed and maintained in various retail outlets.

The distributor agreement included a repurchase provision which obligated the appellant to buy back the counter vendors and any remaining samplettes if the vendors were continuously maintained and serviced at retail outlets for a period of one year.

The lower court found, in effect, that Mrs. Long had substantially performed her duties under the contract and ordered the appellant to repurchase all of her remaining inventory.

The record before this court includes neither a transcript of the lower court proceedings nor an agreed statement of facts. Under these circumstances we are unable to review the appellant’s challenge to the finding of substantial performance. Turner v. Staggs, 89 Nev. 230, 510 P.2d 879 (1973).

Affirmed.