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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, 

PROVIDENCE VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Providence, RI, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0122

Issued: February 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 November 4, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a

September 22, 2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0122.

In a letter dated and received January 22, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0122 is dismissed.

Issued: February 26, 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 16, 2012 

y0313 

Order 

 

March 16, 2012 

144695 

 SC: 144695 

In re E. J. HART, Minor. COA: 305417 

 Oakland CC Family Division: 

10-778931-NA 

_______________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1154
CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1800-A) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 7, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles William Levy, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Lee Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's orders (1) dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint with respect to the City of Alexandria under Monell v. Department of Social Servs. , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and with respect to the remaining defendants forwant of state action and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record including the transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and find no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-38339) of RTI International Metals, Inc. of our
report dated June 29, 2000 relating to the financial statements of the RMI
Titanium Company Employee Savings and Investment Plan, which appears in this
Form 10-K/A. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-38340) of RTI International Metals,
Inc. of our report dated June 29, 2000 relating to the financial statements of
the RMI Titanium Company Bargaining Unit Employee Savings and Investment Plan,
which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 29, 2000
EXHIBIT 10









EXHIBIT 10.6




 




PALIGENT INC.




 




SECOND EXTENSION TO THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS




CONSULTING AND

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT




 




THIS SECOND EXTENSION TO THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSULTING AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED (the “

Second Extension”), is made as of this 9th day of February, 2001

(the “Effective Date”) by and between PALIGENT INC., a Delaware corporation

(the “Company”) and Elliott H. Vernon (the “Consultant”).




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant have entered into a Board of Directors Consulting and

Confidentiality Agreement dated as of January 1, 1998 (the “Agreement”);




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant have entered into an Extension to the Agreement dated December 3,

1998 (the “Extension”);




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant wish to extend the Extension Term for an additional period of one

year commencing January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000 (the “Second

Extension Term”);




 




NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and

the Consultant, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,

hereby agree as follows:




 




4.                                       DEFINITIONS




 




Capitalized terms used

herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings set

forth in the Agreement and the Extension.




 




5.                                       SECOND

EXTENSION




 




5.1      Engagement.

The Company hereby retains the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to

perform the services described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement for the

Second Extension Term.




 




5.2      Incorporation

of Agreement Provisions. Except as modified herein, the Company and Consultant

agree that all of the provisions of the Agreement and the Extension are

incorporated herein and shall apply to the Consultancy during the Second

Extension Term with the same force and effect as if forth herein.




 




6.                                       REPRESENTATION, WARRANTIES

AND COVENANTS




 




Consultant hereby represents, warrants and covenants to the Company

that the Consultant is under no contractual or other restriction or obligation

which is inconsistent with his execution of this Second Extension or the

performance of his duties hereunder and that, during the Second Extension Term,

Consultant did not enter into any agreement either written or oral in conflict

with this Second Extension.




 




The Consultant and the Company have executed and

delivered this Second Extension as a document under seal as of the Effective

Date.




 




	

  PALIGENT INC.


  	

  CONSULTANT:


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Salvatore A. Bucci


  	

   


  	

  /s/ Elliott H. Vernon


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  Salvatore A. Bucci


  	

  Elliott H. Vernon


  
	

   


  	

  President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Foreign Vintages, Inc., Judgment Creditor, *v.*Dina Restaurant Corporation, Judgment Debtor.

City Court of New York, Special Term, New York County,

May 8, 1936.

*Kamen & Ostertag,*for the judgment creditor.

*Alexander & Schwach,*for the judgment debtor.

Wendel, J.

Motion denied. Section 787 of the Civil Practice Act, as it existed prior to September 1, 1935, has been repealed by chapter 630 of the Laws of 1935. That section, it is true, provided that an officer of a corporation can be required to attend only in the county where he has an office for the transaction of business in person or where he resides. The present section 777 of the Civil Practice Act differs from the former section 787 in that it does not contain the provision that an officer of a corporation shall be required to attend where he personally resides or transacts business. In view of this change it would seem that a corporation may now be examined by any of its officers in the place where the corporation transacts business. The corporation, certainly up to March 30, 1936, transacted business in New York county, and had, concededly, never transacted business anywhere else. It seems proper, therefore, to require it to attend in New York county. The debtor corporation is, therefore, directed to attend pursuant to the subpoena dated April 29, 1936, by the officer served therewith at Special Term, Part II, of this court on May 15, 1936, at ten A. M. Order filed.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1607-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated September 24, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 14, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 24, 2005: 

Livingston Parish for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.) 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary,  Emergency Preparedness and Response,  Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-21504 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
**Exhibit 32**
**CERTIFICATION**
In connection with the quarterly report of ERICO International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to such officer’sknowledge:
 1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and forthe periods expressed in the Report.
Date: May 12, 2005         By:   /s/ William H. Roj   Name:  William H. Roj   Title:  Chairman, Chief Executive Officerand Director            By:   /s/ Jeffrey R. Steinhilber   Name:  Jeffrey R. Steinhilber   Title:  Chief Financial Officer and Director
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PALM BEACH COUNTY,

Appellant,

v.

B & B PROPERTIES, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-3041

[August 31, 2023]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gerard Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 50-2019-CA-008660-XXXX-MB.

Helene C. Hvizd, Senior Assistant County Attorney, West Palm Beach,

for appellant.

James K. Green of James K. Green, P.A., West Palm Beach, Louis M. 

Silber of Silber & Davis, West Palm Beach, and Gary Dunkel of Fox 

Rothschild LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
American Financial Enterprises, Inc. 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          59,939
<SECURITIES>                                   445,826<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 506,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,291
<OTHER-SE>                                     410,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   506,264
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,864<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,592
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,714)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.05
<FN>
<F1>Included in "Marketable Securities" is AFEI's investment in affiliates
of $440.7 million.
<F2>Included in "Total revenue" is equity in net earnings of affiliates of
$28.2 million.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.7.1

                  CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         Pursuant to Section 7.5 of the Employment Agreement dated as of August
10, 2000, between Heritage Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Heritage"),
and the undersigned (the "Employee"), the undersigned Employee does hereby
consent and agree to (i) the assignment of said Employment Agreement by Heritage
to U.S. Propane, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("U.S. Propane"), and U.S.
Propane's assumption of the duties and responsibilities of Heritage arising
under said Employment Agreement.

         DATED as of February 3, 2002.



                                            ---------------------------------
                                            James E. Bertlesmeyer
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN BLACK

No. 7419SC133

(Filed 6 February 1974)

Appeal by defendant from *Seay, Judge,*27 August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Randolph County.

*650
      *Attorney General Robert Morgan by Archie W. Anders, Associate Attorney, for the State.*

*Bell, Ogbum & Redding by Deane F. Bell for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant does not bring forward any assignment of error from his trial for and conviction of the felonies of breaking and entering and larceny. Counsel asks that we examine the record for possible errors of law. We have done so and find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
**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 Annual Report of Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn D. Bolduc, President, 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, 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/ Glenn D. Bolduc

 

Glenn D. Bolduc

 

President, Chief Executive Officer 

Date: October 29, 2012

 

This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by we for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5052 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5052

 To amend Public Law 110-36 to clarify that a period of employment by 
   the Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a security 
  advisor, translator, or interpreter in Iraq or Afghanistan is to be 
 counted as a period of residence and physical presence in the United 
         States for purposes of qualifying for naturalization.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2010

   Mr. Dent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend Public Law 110-36 to clarify that a period of employment by 
   the Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a security 
  advisor, translator, or interpreter in Iraq or Afghanistan is to be 
 counted as a period of residence and physical presence in the United 
         States for purposes of qualifying for naturalization.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ABSENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES 
              DUE TO EMPLOYMENT AS A TRANSLATOR OR INTERPRETER IN IRAQ 
              OR AFGHANISTAN.

    (a) In General.--Section 1(e)(1) of Public Law 110-36 (121 Stat. 
228) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) In general.--A period of absence from the United 
        States described in paragraph (2)--
                    ``(A) shall not be considered to break any period 
                for which continuous residence or physical presence in 
                the United States is required for naturalization under 
                title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
                U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); and
                    ``(B) shall be treated as a period of residence and 
                physical presence in the United States for purposes of 
                satisfying the requirements for naturalization under 
                such title.''.
    (b) Absence Described.--Section 1(e)(2)(A) of Public Law 110-36 
(121 Stat. 228) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(A) such employment involved working with the 
                Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as 
                translator, interpreter, or in a security position; 
                and''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of Public Law 110-36.
                                 <all>
```