alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GAUDIN MOTOR CO., INC., Appellant, *v.*RICHARD N. PRIETH, Respondent.

No. 4149

September 26, 1958.

329 P.2d 1069.

*Zenoff & Magleby,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Herman E. Fisher,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Judgment was filed July 11,1958, notice thereof served July 16, and notice of appeal, designation of contents of *302record on appeal and appeal bond served and filed July 21. On September 16 appellant filed the record on appeal, the motion for extension of time to file the record and its opening brief on the merits. On September 17 respondent served his motion to dismiss the appeal. The clerk of the district court was unable to complete the preparation of the record on appeal before September 1, 1958, the last day for docketing under the rule, and actually certified the record September 11. Counsel in charge of the appeal was away from his office on several days of the week of Monday, September 1. No extension of time to docket the record was obtained from the district judge.

If appellant had availed itself of its full 30 days for appeal, Rule 73(a) NRCP, and its full 40 days to docket the appeal, 73 (g) id., this would have resulted in docketing its appeal on September 24, whereas it was actually docketed eight days before that date.

Under all of these circumstances we think the situation is governed by Garibaldi Trucking Co. v. Waldren, 72 Nev. 12, 292 P.2d 356, q.v., rather than by Doolittle v. Doolittle, 70 Nev. 163, 262 P.2d 955, q.v., on which respondent relies.

The motion for extension is granted and the motion to dismiss denied. Respondent may have 15 days from receipt of a copy of this order within which to serve and file his answering brief on the merits.
#### CHARLES COOK and ELIZABETH COOK, Husband and Wife, Appellants, *v.*GENEVA FARIA, Respondent.

No. 3985

August 11, 1958.

328 P.2d 568.

*Williams and Mann,*of Elko, for Appellants.

*Perce Hall,*Mountain Home, Idaho, and *Orville R. Wilson,*Elko, for Respondent.

Opinion on Rehearing

*Per Curiam:*

On the original submission of this appeal we affirmed the judgement against both appellant. 73 Nev. 295, 318 *263P.2d 649. As to the question of simple negligence on the part of Mrs. Cook, we said: “Reasonable minds might well differ upon the question whether the acts of Mrs. Cook violated the standard of conduct of a reasonable man and a jury finding of simple negligence would not be disturbed under these circumstances.” We thereafter granted a rehearing on the issue whether upon the law and the facts the record could support judgment against Charles Cook, Elizabeth’s husband. Appellant Charles Cook filed a brief on rehearing but no brief has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

The acts of negligence in support of the judgment heretofore affirmed were all the acts of Elizabeth Cook, driver of the car in question. Appellant refers to additional facts as follows:

“The 1963 Dodge Sedan was referred to as ‘our car’ and it may be conceded that the car was the community property of both defendants in the action.

“There is a complete absence of any testimony that Charles Cook took any part in directing his wife, Elizabeth, as to what roads to follow or how to operate the car. Elizabeth Cook drove the entire distance of the trip and did not seek advice or assistance from Charles Cook. He had no function as a lookout for any of the other occupants of the car.” This is not controverted by respondent. Judgment against Charles Cook can, therefore, be supported only if his wife’s negligence can be imputed to him. The doctrine of such imputed negligence has never been adopted in this state. See Fredrickson & Watson Const. Co. v. Boyd, 60 Nev. 117, 102 P.2d 627. There is, accordingly, nothing to support the judgment against appellant Charles Cook. As to him, the judgment is reversed. No costs are allowed on the rehearing. Remittitur may issue forthwith.
#### KENNETH EDWARD SHEPLEY, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7215

February 7, 1974

518 P.2d 619

*Gary A. Sheerin,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Michael Fondi,*District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Kenneth Edward Shepley, appellant, was convicted of first-degree burglary on a plea of guilty and sentenced to from 1 to 15 years in the Nevada State Prison. The crime was committed on February 16, 1967, in Carson City, Nevada, and in March of that same year the Nevada Legislature amended the burglary statute, NRS 205.060, by reducing the maximum penalty for first-degree burglary from 15 to 12 years. Shepley was sentenced on May 12, 1967, and the amendment to NRS 205.060 became effective July 1, 1967.

In May 1968, the Nevada State Board of Parole Commissioners considered appellant’s eligibility for parole. At the *94hearing thereon, a representative of the Carson City District Attorney’s office appeared, testified, and presented evidence against granting parole to appellant. Appellant’s request for parole was subsequently denied by the Parole Board.

Thereafter, appellant filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging as error the imposition of a sentence for a maximum term of 15 years in light of the amended statute and the presence of a member of the District Attorney’s office at the parole hearing. We find both contentions to be without merit, and we affirm the decision of the lower court.

1. The amendment to NRS 205.060 became effective July .1, 1967. Stats. Nev. 1967, ch. 211, § 701, at 667. Until that date, the former provisions of the statute remained in force. Moreover, there is no indication that the Legislature intended the amendment to apply retroactively. Tellis v. State, 84 Nev. 587, 445 P.2d 938 (1968); Fitch v. Elko County, 8 Nev. 271 (1893). Since appellant’s offense and his conviction therefor occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment to NRS 205.060, the provisions of the amendment do not apply to that offense and conviction. NRS 193.130(1).

2. Raggio v. Campbell, 80 Nev. 418, 395 P.2d 625 (1964), is dispositive of the second issue propounded by appellant. This court held therein that the District Attorney is a “person beneficially interested” in the parole proceedings. Thus, the presence of a representative of the Carson City District Attorney’s office at appellant’s parole hearing did not interfere with appellant’s constitutional rights.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the lower court.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOS ANGELES 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0152

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 8, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a January 13, 2021 decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0152.

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 January 13, 2021 decision was July 12, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 8, 2021, more than 180 days after the

1 The Board notes that appellant’s Application for Review (AB-1) form notes that she is requesting an appeal from 

a March 13, 2019 decision. However, there is no such decision found in the case record. The most recent decision 

issued by OWCP is dated January 13, 2021. 

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

January 13, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0152 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. 22-0152 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

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| 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/ Michael              D. Weaver                        |   |   |   |
| Michael              D. Weaver                                      |   |   |        |
| Chief                Executive OfficerAugust                9, 2006 |   |   |   |

----
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 Otelco Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q
      for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr., Chief
      Financial 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
      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.








/s/
        Curtis L. Garner, Jr.


Curtis
      L.
      Garner, Jr.


*Chief
      Financial Officer*


May
      10,
      2006
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES JEROME FREEMAN

No. 716SC263

(Filed 26 May 1971)

Appeal by defendant from *Tillery, Judge,*December 1970 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Halifax County.

Defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment, proper in form, charging him with felonious escape while lawfully confined in the State Prison System. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and defendant appeals from judgment imposed upon the verdict.

*Attorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Eatman for the State.*

*Josey & Vaughan by C. Kitchin Josey for defendant appellant.*

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s court appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he candidly concedes that he is unable to find prejudicial error. We have reviewed the record proper and conclude that no prejudicial error appears on the face thereof.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
#### Orin OLSON, Appellant, v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-1399.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 13, 1972.

Russell M. Spence, Robins, Meshbesher, Singer & Spence, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

James G. Nye, Jr., Nye, Johnson & Bauer, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Orin Olson, was a block layer for Geo. W. Olson Construction Company, a general contractor, employed by the owner-defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Incorporated, to build a warehouse in Red Wing, Minnesota. During the course of construction plaintiff was seriously injured by the collapse of a concrete block wall. Plaintiff sued the owner and the architect of the building. Olson Construction Company could not be sued directly by reason of its exclusive liability under the Minnesota Workmen’s Compensation Act. A special jury verdict was returned finding the wall collapse was due to 100 percent negligence on the part of the general contractor. Thus judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. The trial court refused to set aside the verdict and this appeal followed.

On appeal the plaintiff urges that the trial court refused to instruct the jury that the defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., could be found liable under § 416 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).1 Both parties agree that Minnesota law governs the action.

*1300The trial judge, the Honorable Philip Neville, in a well reasoned opinion held § 416 of the Restatement not applicable to the facts. Olson v. Kilstofte and Vo-sejpka, Inc., 327 F.Supp. 583 (D.Minn. 1971). We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Section 416 reads :

> “One wlio employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize ns likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take sucli precautions, even though the employer has provided for sucli precautions in the contract or otherwise.”
Exhibit 32.2

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 Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 24, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, N. Michael Dion, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                                     
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 6, 2006                                                    
|      | 
|      |  | /s/ N. MICHAEL DION                                                 
|      |  | N. Michael Dion Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.3

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 American Banknote
Corporation (the Company ) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Steven G. Singer, Chairman and 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ Steven G. Singer
Steven G. Singer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2003
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with theReport on Form 10-Q of McCormick and Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc. forthe quarterly period ended June 26, 2004 (the “Report”), hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of McCormick and Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO                                |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Emanuel N. Hilario                                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance |
|   | Dated:  August 26, 2004                     |

 

1

----
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL****OFFICER**


**NANOSENSORS,
      INC.**


**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 NanoSensors, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joshua Moser,
      Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      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.


Date: October
                  12, 2007
                
                /s/ Joshua
                  MoserJoshua
                  MoserInterim
                      Chief Financial
                      Officer


*This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
      date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to NanoSensors, Inc. and will be retained
      by NanoSensors, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request* *.*
**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 Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Weaver,
      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
      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.





/s/
                Michael D. WeaverMichael
                D. WeaverChief
                Executive OfficerNovember
                6, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61978-61979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21433]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following Council meeting:

    Name: Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis 
(ACET).
    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., November 16, 2005. 8:30 a.m.-
12 p.m., November 17, 2005.
    Place: Corporate Square, Building 8, 1st Floor Conference Room, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (404) 639-8008.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.
    Purpose: This council advises and makes recommendations to the 
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, the Assistant 
Secretary for Health, and the Director, CDC, regarding the 
elimination of tuberculosis. Specifically, the Council makes 
recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and 
priorities; addresses the development and application of new 
technologies; and reviews the extent to which progress has been made 
toward eliminating tuberculosis.
    Matters to Be Discussed: Agenda items include issues pertaining 
to TB surveillance in the United States, Tuberculosis Coalition for 
Technical Assistance Activities and other TB related topics.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Paulette Ford-Knights, 
National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, 
NE., M/S E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-8008.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.


[[Page 61979]]


    Dated: October 21, 2005.
Diane Allen,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-21433 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P