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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

Sterling, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0659

Issued: May 18, 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 25, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an August 9, 2019 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0659.

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 August 9, 2019 decision was February 5, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until March 25, 2021, more than 180 days after the August 9,

2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0659 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. 21-0659 is dismissed.

Issued: May 18, 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).
#### DONALD NALLS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7256

March 28, 1974

520 P.2d 611

*125
      *James W. Johnson, Jr.,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Convicted by a jury of committing battery with a deadly weapon (slashing his wife’s face with a knife), appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting into evidence two color photographs of the wound, which he claims were offered solely to inflame the passions of the jury. Appellant’s defense was that he lacked criminal intent, having inflicted the wound accidentally. Therefore, he argues, since he did not dispute the wound’s severity, the photographs were immaterial to the issues at trial.

Photographic evidence is generally liberally admitted, so long as it sheds light upon some material inquiry. Alsup v. State, 87 Nev. 500, 489 P.2d 679 (1971); Langley v. State, 84 Nev. 295, 439 P.2d 986 (1968). The fact that appellant did not dispute the seriousness of the wound did not negate the photographs’ materiality. At trial, the victim supported appellant’s defense that the wound was accidentally inflicted, *126and minimized its severity. The photographs tended to show the angle and force of the knife thrust, which the jury were entitled to consider in determining whether to disbelieve appellant and the victim, and to believe other witnesses concerning the wound’s severity and the intentional manner in which it was inflicted.

Appellant’s remaining assignments of error are equally without merit.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2006 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO 
|Emanuel N. Hilario     
|Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 9, 2006
##### 



Exhibit 32 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Each of the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Conexant
Systems, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Dated: December 9, 2004 /s/ Dwight W. DeckerDwight W. DeckerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer/s/ J. Scott BlouinJ. Scott BlouinSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                               November 14, 2001


TouchTunes Digital Jukebox Inc.
3 Commerce Place, 4th floor
Montreal, Quebec
H3E 1H7

ATTENTION : MR. MATTHEW CARSON, CFO

                             Object : Clause 12.1.5
                             ----------------------


In response to your request, National Bank of Canada hereby accepts to amend
clause 12.1.5 of the Offer of Financing dated September 20, 2001.

Therefore, clause 12.1.5 shall now read as followed :

13.5.1   maintain, at all times, on a consolidated basis, as applicable, a net
         Shareholders's Equity of at least US $8,000,000;

As discussed, this amendement is conditional to the followings :

- Cancellation of Facility " F " and "G" (Term loans of US $2,000,000 and
  US $1,000,000).

- Acceptance from Investissement-Quebec and EDC

Yours truly,

/s/ Eric St-Louis                   /s/ Jean-Guy Paris
-----------------                   ------------------
    Eric St-Louis                       Jean-Guy Paris
    Account Manager                     Senior Manager
    (514)394-8472                       (514)394-8414


c.c.:      LC 030 396 782            LC 030 396 783
           --------------            --------------
           Mr. Roland Ribotti        Mrs. Sophie Forest
           Director, Investments     Investment Director
           Media and Entertainment   CDP Sofinov
           CDP Capital Communications
EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Each of
the undersigned, Shaun E. McAlmont, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (the “Company”), and Cesar Ribeiro,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2009 (the “Report”).





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his respective 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:     May
8, 2009








/s/ Shaun E. McAlmontShaun
      E. McAlmontPresident
      & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Cesar RibeiroCesar
      RibeiroChief
      Financial
Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10517 Summary Calendar

MARTIN MILTON MILLER, JR Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ALEXANDER M KALMANOV, Medical Doctor; DAVID POTTER, D.O.; JOHN E WILSON, P.A. Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CV-159
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Martin Milton Miller, Jr., Texas prisoner # 634502, appeals from the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the dismissal ofhis pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Cousin v. Small , 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 30, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-10517

2 Mi ller asserts that, for a period of five years, defendants Kalmanov and Wilson exercised deliberate indifference to the treatment of his hemorrhoi d condition. The record reflects that Miller was treated for his hemorrhoids, including two separate visits with specialists. Miller’s complaints regarding his treatment constitute disagreement with the method of treatment that was provided and are non-actionable under the Eighth Amendment. See Varnardo v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Miller also asserts that the defendants lied about his medical condition to retaliate against Miller for filing grievances concerning the method oftreatment that he was receiving. He contends that Wilson and Kalmanov engaged in retaliatory practices by consistently prescribing hydrocortisone cream although it caused Miller burning pain. Miller has not alleged “a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996). He has not shown that but for a retaliatory motive, the defendants would not have prescribed hydrocortisone cream to treat his hemorrhoid condition. See id

. T he district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Cousin, 325 F.3d at 637

. Miller has abandoned his conspiracy and deliberate indi fference claims against defendant Potter. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4(h)(i)

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                               AEP CAPITAL TRUST I

     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF AEP Capital Trust I (the "Trust") is being
duly executed and filed by Wilmington Trust Company, a Delaware banking
corporation, Jeffrey D. Cross and Stephan T. Haynes, each an individual, as
trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12
Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the Act).

1. NAME. The name of the business trust formed hereby is AEP Capital Trust I.

2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust
in the State of Delaware are Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100
N. Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890, Attention: Corporate Trust
Administration.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of Trust
in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

                                       WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY
                                       as Trustee


                                       By: /s/ Donald G. MacKelcan
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Name:  Donald G. MacKelcan
                                           Title: Vice President


                                           /s/ Jeffrey D. Cross
                                           ----------------------------
                                           as Trustee


                                           /s/ Stephan T. Haynes
                                           ----------------------------
                                           as Trustee
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5051 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5051

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2010

Mr. Crowley (for himself, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Israel, Mr. King 
of New York, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Meeks of New 
 York, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Velazquez, 
  Mr. McMahon, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Engel, Mrs. 
  Lowey, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Murphy of New York, Mr. Tonko, Mr. 
 Hinchey, Mr. Owens, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Maffei, Mr. Lee of New York, Mr. 
 Higgins, and Ms. Slaughter) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Zachary Smith 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5176 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5176

   To amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit States and 
  Territories from classifying self-employed individuals as employees 
                under State collective bargaining laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2010

 Mr. Hoekstra introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit States and 
  Territories from classifying self-employed individuals as employees 
                under State collective bargaining laws.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family and Independent Business 
Protection Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CLASSIFICATION OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS AS 
              EMPLOYEES.

    Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no State or 
territory may define or classify any person as an employee of the State 
or Territory for purposes of the employment, labor relations, or 
collective bargaining laws or regulations of that State or territory, 
by reason of such person's receipt of or eligibility for any payment or 
subsidy funded in whole or in part by the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                BELLWETHER EXPLORATION COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                -----------------------------------------------


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 March 2, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Bellwether
Exploration Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, 1997 and June 30,
1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended  December 31, 1998, the
six month period ended December 31, 1997, and the years ended June 30,
1997 and 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on
Form 10-K of Bellwether Exploration Company.



KPMG LLP
Houston, Texas
March 19, 1998
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31992D0282

**92/282/EEC: Commission Decision of 8 May 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Portugal (Only the Portuguese text is authentic)***Official Journal L 150 , 02/06/1992 P. 0024 - 0024*

COMMISSION DECISION  of 8 May 1992  approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Portugal  (Only the Portuguese text is authentic)  (92/282/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 

 Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by Directive 91/496/EEC (2), and in  particular Article 3 (2) thereof, 

 Whereas by letter dated 13 February 1992 Portugal transmitted a plan to the Commission; 

 Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof; 

 Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, 

 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:  

Article 1 

 The plan submitted by Portugal for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.  

Article 2 

 Portugal shall bring into force by 1 May 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.  

Article 3 

 This Decision is addressed to Portugal. Done at Brussels, 8 May 1992. For the Commission 

 Ray MAC SHARRY 

 Member of the Commission   

(1) OJ No L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6. (2) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 56.
**EXHIBIT
  31.2** ****





**CERTIFICATION
  REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE**


**SECURITIES
  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** ****





I,
  Brian E. Cho, Chief Financial Officer of Wilshire Bancorp, Inc., certify that:




1.
  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wilshire Bancorp, Inc.;




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 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 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 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.


WILSHIRE BANCORP, INC.Date: November 15, 2004
        By:
        /s/ Brian E. Cho .Brian E. ChoChief Financial Officer