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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Oakland, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0374

Issued: February 25, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 4, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a June 29, 2020 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0374.

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 June 29, 2020 decision was December 26, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until January 4, 2021, more than 180 days after the June 29,

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0374 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a 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 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. 21-0374 is dismissed.

Issued: February 25, 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

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### Alexander Churchill et al. *v.*Helen Skjerding, Executrix (Estate of Eva Churchlow), et al.

*Irving H. Perlmutter,*in support of the petition.

*Deborah M. DelBuono*and *Frederic E. Mascolo,*in opposition.

Decided June 24, 1993

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 247 (AC 11253), is denied.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 11, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01083

- CR

TOMMY MARK LAYMAN , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 53590

- I



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Fillmore Tommy Mark Layman filed a notice of appeal which stated it was being filed within
thirty days of July 5, 2013 and was appealing his conviction. We have received written
confirmation from the Dallas County District Clerk that there is no judgment of conviction
because the case has not yet proceeded to tr ial. 1

“Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case.” Olivo v. State
, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jurisdiction of an appellate court must be
legally invoked, and if not, the power of the court to act is as absent as if it did not exist. See id.

at 523. As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only

after conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1998, no pet.). A

1 Although appellant is represented by counsel in the trial court, he filed a pro se notice of appeal. We sent appellant’s att orney and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office a letter questioning our jurisdiction, but we did not receive a response fr om either.– 2

– court of appeals has no ju risdiction over an appeal absent a written judgment or an appealable

order. See Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Nikrasch v. State
, 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1985, no pet.).
Because there is no judgment of convi ction or other appealable order, we lack jurisdiction
over this appeal. See Gutierrez , 307 S.W.3d at 321; Nikrasch , 698 S.W.2d at 450. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47

131083F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TOMMY MARK LAYMAN, Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 01083

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 53590

- I. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Bridges and Lewis participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of September, 2013.

/Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5158 

To require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with certain 

reporting requirements and transparency standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply 

with certain reporting requirements and transparency 

standards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Summitville Procure5 ment Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTORS AND 

7 SUBCONTRACTORS. 

8 (a) REQUIREMENT.—In the case of a Federal con9 tract awarded by any department or agency of the Federal 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5158 IH

1 Government, the contract shall require, as a condition of 

2 the contract, that the contractor— 

3 (1) shall comply with procurement reporting re4 quirements and transparency standards in the per5 formance of the contract; 

6 (2) shall require any subcontractor under the 

7 contract to comply with such requirements and 

8 standards; and 

9 (3) shall submit to the department or agency 

10 that awarded the contract a report regarding all 

11 subcontracts awarded in the performance of the con12 tract, including the procedures used in awarding the 

13 subcontracts. 

14 (b) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND TRANS15 PARENCY STANDARDS.—In this Act, the term ‘‘procure16 ment reporting requirements and transparency standards’’ 

17 means each of the following: 

18 (1) A requirement to publicize proposed con19 tracting opportunities. 

20 (2) A requirement to select a contractor based 

21 on full and open competition, with the award going 

22 to the lowest-priced responsible qualified bidder, in 

23 the case of procurements conducted by sealed bid24 ding, or the offeror whose proposal represents best 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5158 IH

1 value for the government, in the case of negotiated 

2 procurements. 

3 (3) A requirement to report information on 

4 which bidder or offeror received the contract award. 

5 (4) A requirement to disclose certain informa6 tion to unsuccessful bidders or offerors. 

7 (5) The ability to access a copy of the contract 

8 of the winning bidder or offeror. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements of this sec10 tion shall apply with respect to contracts entered into on 

11 and after the date occurring 90 days after the date of the 

12 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
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, Marc Holliday, 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/MARC HOLLIDAYName:  Marc Holliday
Title:Chief Financial Officer


August 4,
2008

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Thomas Gurkowski, Secretary/Treasurer and CFO of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do 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 my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on 10QSB of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: May 30, 2006.



/s/ Thomas Gurkowski

_______________________

Thomas Gurkowski

(Secretary/Treasurer and CFO)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 475 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 475

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code to qualify formerly homeless youth 
    who are students for purposes of low income housing tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2009

  Mr. Ellison (for himself, Mr. Walz, Mr. Oberstar, and Ms. McCollum) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code to qualify formerly homeless youth 
    who are students for purposes of low income housing tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. FORMERLY HOMELESS YOUTH WHO ARE STUDENTS QUALIFIED FOR 
              PURPOSES OF LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 42(i)(3)(D) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subclauses (II) and 
(III) as subclauses (III) and (IV), respectively, and by inserting 
after subclause (I) the following new subclause:
                                    ``(II) a student who previously was 
                                a homeless child or youth (as defined 
                                by section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 
                                Homeless Assistance Act),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to determinations made before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Thomas Robert LIENAU, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0685-17-4

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

February 12, 2019

Peter D. Greenspun (Anastasia T. Kranias ; Greenspun Shapiro PC, on briefs), for appellant.

Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on briefs), for appellee.

Before Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys, Petty, Beales, Alston, Huff, Chafin, O'Brien, Russell, AtLee and Malveaux *780Upon Rehearing En Banc *44On September 11, 2018, a panel of this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. *See**Lienau v. Commonwealth*, 69 Va. App. 254, 818 S.E.2d 58 (2018). A dissenting opinion was filed in the panel decision. We subsequently granted the Commonwealth's petition for rehearing *en banc* , stayed the mandate of the panel decision, and reinstated the appeal on the docket of this Court. *781Upon such rehearing *en banc* , the stay of this Court's September 11, 2018 mandate is lifted, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for the reasons stated in the panel's majority opinion.

Judges Humphreys, Petty, Beales, Alston, Huff, Chafin, and Russell voted to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court in accordance with the majority opinion of the panel.

Chief Judge Decker, Judges O'Brien, AtLee, and Malveaux voted to affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of the original panel decision.

It is ordered that the trial court allow the court-appointed attorneys for the appellant, an additional fee of $200 for services rendered the appellant on the rehearing portion of this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10205 and # 10206] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 5.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated: 09/24/2005. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Rita.                     

*Incident period:*                         09/23/2005 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         10/14/2005.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/23/2005.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/26/2006.                     

# Addresses:

Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 09/24/2005, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Parish:*                     Livingston.                 

*Contiguous Parish:*                     Louisiana: Saint Helena.                 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-21444 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Humphrey P. Polanen, Chief Executive Officer of Sand Hill IT Security Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do 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 my knowledge: 

 

| • | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934; and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: November 14, 2005

 

/s/ Humphrey P. Polanen

Humphrey P. Polanen

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4

                       Independent Accountants' Consent

The Board of Directors
Bellwether Exploration Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
33-91320) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 33-91326) on Form S-8, 
registration statement (No. 333-27707) on Form S-8 and registration statement 
(No. 333-16231) on Form S-8 of Bellwether Exploration Company of our report 
dated September 29, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 
Bellwether Exploration Company and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1997 and 1996 and
the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' 
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June
30, 1997, which report appears in the June 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K 
of Bellwether Exploration Company.

                                /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Houston, Texas
September 29, 1997
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.C., Appellant

and

U.S. GOVERNMENT, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0385

Issued: December 23, 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 January 24, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from a purported decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-

0385.

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

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The Board’s Rules of Procedure provide that a notice of appeal shall 

contain certain information, including the “[d]ate and [c]ase [f]ile [n]umber assigned by OWCP 

concerning the decision being appealed to the Board.”

3

 Appellant has not provided a valid OWCP 

case file number; therefore, no final adverse decision has been identified over which the Board 

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 from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(c)(4).
2

may properly exercise jurisdiction. As such, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

21-0385 must be dismissed.4 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0385 is dismissed.

Issued: December 23, 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

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 daysfrom the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
- 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v . GALVAN Cite as 306 Neb. 498

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Braden M. Galvan, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed July 17, 2020. Nos. S‐19‐623, S‐19‐624.

supplemental opinion Appeal from the District Court for Hall County: Mark J. Young , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehear

ing overruled. Gerard A. Piccolo, Hall County Public Defender, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee. Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ. Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. Galvan , 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020). We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, under the subheading “ Plain Error ,” we withdraw the first two sentences of the fifth paragraph, including footnotes 24 and 25. State v. Galvan , 305 Neb. at 521, 941 N.W.2d at 190. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 08/28/2020 01:07 AM CDT