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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, New Orleans, LA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0824

Issued: May 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 7, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from April 29 and August 24, 2020 nonmerit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0824.

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 24, 2020 decision was February 22, 2021.

3

 As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until May 7, 2021, more than 180 days after the

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).

3 As the 180th day fell on Saturday, February 20, 2021, appellant had until the next business day, Monday, 

February 22, 2021, to timely file a Board appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(3).
2

August 24, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0824 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0824 is dismissed.

Issued: May 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00 287 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

IN R E NAVISTAR, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relator , Navistar, Inc. (“Navistar”) , f iled a petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on May 26, 2016

. Through this original pro ceeding, relator seeks to set aside discovery orders which “compel Navistar to produce documents from a Securities Exchange Commission investigation into the financial disclosures made by Navistar’s parent company and its former CEO to stockholders about proposed engines Navistar never manufactured for sale and which are different from the engine model” that powers trucks purchased by the real party in interest, Americorp Xpress Carriers, LLC.2

T he Court requests that the real part y in interest , Americorp Xpress Carriers, LLC , or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, including but not limited to Santex Truck Centers Ltd., file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIA M
D elivered and filed the 2 7t h day of May , 201 6

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 21, 2024

No. 04

- 24

- 00427

- CV

IN RE Christian Miguel ARROYO

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On June 28, 2024, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the petition and attached record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on August 21, 2024

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of August, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada

, Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021

- CI

- 16383 , styled In the Interest of L.I.A.

- N., a Child , pending in the 57th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.
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 Excellency Investment Realty
Trust, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended
March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, David Mladen, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive, financial, and accounting 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.



By:/s/ David Mladen
   -----------------------------------------------
       David Mladen
       Chief Executive Officer (principal
       executive, financial, and accounting officer)
       Dated this 21st day of May, 2007
#### CHARLES MICHAEL RODGERS, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7280

February 7, 1975

530 P.2d 1207

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Special Deputy Public Defender, of Carson City, for Appellant.

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

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Since the record does not show that Rodgers’ guilty plea to the charge of robbery was induced by a promise of the prosecutor which later was broken, we affirm the order of the district court denying post-conviction relief. Conger v. Warden, 89 Nev. 263, 510 P.2d 1359 (1973).

Affirmed.
#### SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. HAROLD TRAVIS LYONS, Jr., Respondent.

No. 12357

March 14, 1980

607 P.2d 590

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *Gregory C. Diamond,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Manos & Cherry,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*299OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

By way of information, respondent was charged with possession of a cheating device, a violation of NRS 465.080.1 Thereafter, respondent petitioned the district court for a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to bind respondent over for trial. The district court granted the petition and the State appeals therefrom.

At the preliminary examination a casino security agent testified that he observed respondent inserting what was later identified as a “spoon”, a device used for cheating, into a slot machine.

A criminal defendant may be bound over for trial if the evidence adduced is sufficient to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed and the defendant has committed it. State v. von Brincken, 86 Nev. 769, 476 P.2d 733 (1970). “The finding of probable cause may be based on slight, even ‘marginal’ evidence . . . .” Sheriff v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P.2d 178, 180 (1980). The “spoon” possessed by respondent was clearly identified as a device used for cheating slot machines. Thus, we believe the State produced evidence sufficient to establish probable cause. *See*Graham v. State, 86 Nev. 290, 467 P.2d 1016 (1970).

Reversed.

1

NRS 465.080(3) provides:

> “It is unlawful for any person, not a duly authorized employee of a licensed gaming establishment acting in furtherance of his employment within such establishment, to have on his person or in his possession while on the premises of such establishment any cheating or thieving device, including, but not limited to, tools, wires, drills, coins attached to strings or wires, electronic or magnetic devices to facilitate removing from any slot machine any money or other contents thereof.”
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group Reproduction, Andrology, and 
Gynecology Subcommittee.
    Date: November 8-9, 2005.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98eaf9f6f0f9f6fcf2d8f5f9f1f4b6f6f1f0b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d5f4c43454c4349476d404c444103434445034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 13, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21127 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00412-CR

JAMES MONROE LANG,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-06031-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted James Monroe Lang of driving while intoxicated, with a child 

passenger under the age of fifteen. The trial court sentenced Lang to two years in State 

jail. Lang’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting one potential issue. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Although 

informed of his right to do so, Lang did not file a pro se brief. Nor did the State file a 

brief. We affirm.
Lang v. State Page 2

In one potential issue, appellate counsel addresses whether Lang received 

ineffective assistance of counsel, identifying several instances when counsel acted or 

failed to act which Lang now contends were improper.

To prove ineffective assistance, an appellant must show that: (1) counsel’s 

performance was deficient; and (2) the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient 

performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. 

Ed. 2d 674 (1984); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S. Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L. 

Ed. 2d 471 (2003). The record is silent as to any reasons explaining trial counsel’s 

actions and we will not so speculate. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1999). Absent a record revealing trial counsel’s strategy or motivation, Lang 

cannot defeat the strong presumption that trial counsel’s actions fell within the wide 

range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. An ineffective assistance claim is better 

raised through an application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Rylander v. State, 101 

S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Having conducted an independent review of the record, we find this appeal to be 

wholly frivolous. We affirm the judgment. Pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 

48.4, counsel must send Lang a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, at Lang’s last known address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify

Lang of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte 

Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Villanueva v. State, 209 S.W.3d 

239, 249 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 
Lang v. State Page 3

effective upon counsel’s compliance with the aforementioned notification requirement 

as evidenced by “a letter [to this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P.

48.4.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

(Chief Justice Gray concurring with note)*

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 31, 2010

Do not publish

[CR25]

* (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment to the extent it affirms the trial court 

judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.)
----

Berichtigung der Entscheidung der Kommission vom 29. Januar 2004 zur Festlegung von Leitlinien für Überwachung und Berichterstattung betreffend Treibhausgasemissionen gemäß der Richtlinie 2003/87/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 59 vom 26. Februar 2004)

Seiten 9 bis 11, Tabelle 1:

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial data extracted from the consolidated
balance sheet and the  consolidated  statement of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         106,938
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                   51,465
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               285,764
<PP&E>                                         40,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 349,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,295,923
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    913,700
<COMMON>                                       66,706
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,161,744)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,114,585
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,151,256
<CGS>                                          1,685,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,489,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (22,542)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,000,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,000,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                42,916
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,043,779)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.46)
        


</TABLE>
#### Frederick A. Jones, Respondent, *v.*William H. Woodin et al., Appellants.

*Jones*v. *Woodin,*171 App. Div. 952, affirmed.

(Submitted October 28, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 4, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The action was brought. to recover damages for the conversion of an undetermined number of shares of the common stock of the defendant Standard Plunger Elevator Company, the complaint alleging that on or about the 21st day of April, 1906,' plaintiff surrendered and delivered to defendants Woodin and Hoyt a certain voting trust certificate, upon which surrender and delivery he was entitled to receive the stock in question, but that the defendants appropriated to their own use the said voting trust certificate and the stock represented thereby and refused to deliver to the plaintiff or his nominee any part of said property though often requested so to do, The answers of the defendants set forth that according to the terms of the voting trust agreement under which plaintiff’s certificate had been issued, the interest represented by each trust certificate was assignable only by transfer upon the books of the trustees by the registered holder thereof on the surrender of the certificate properly assigned; that plaintiff’s trust certificate was never assigned in accordance with these provisions and was never delivered or surrendered to defendants, but that it continued to stand in the name of his wife; and that the defendants had always been ready and able and willing to deliver to plaintiff in exchange for his trust certificate duly indorsed his proportionate share of the common stock of the Standard Plunger Elevator Company.

*Charles F. Brown*and *Charles K. Carpenter*for appellants.

*James A. Foley*for respondent.

*679Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Pound, JJ. Not sitting: Cardozo, J. Absent: Andrews, J.
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 # 10214 and # 10215]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Kansas dated 10/20/2005. *Incident:*
                         Severe Thunderstorm, Torrential Rains & Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         10/01/2005 through 10/02/2005. *Effective Date:*
                         10/20/2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/19/2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/20/2006.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Jefferson, Leavenworth. Contiguous Counties: Kansas: Atchison, Douglas, Jackson, Johnson, Shawnee, Wyandotte. Missouri: Platte. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.557Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.750Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10214 6 and for economic injury is 10215 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Kansas and Missouri. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: October 20, 2005. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 05-21448 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Jack Chen and Maggie Zhang, jointly and
severally, as his attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for
him/her in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form
10-Q and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his
substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this Form 10-Q has
been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated:


    Signature                            Title                        Date

  /s/ Jack Chen          Chief Executive Officer and Director    August 14, 2009
 --------------------
    Jack Chen

 /s/ Maggie Zhang           Acting Chief Financial Officer       August 14, 2009
 --------------------
     Maggie Zhang