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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.U., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

COATESVILLE VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Coatesville, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0185

Issued: December 17, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Bonita Barbush Urban, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 17, 2020 appellant, through his representative, filed an appeal from a

May 18, 2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0185.

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

 

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

3

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

The 180th day following the May 18, 2020 decision was November 14, 2020. As 

November 14, 2020 was a Saturday, appellant had until Monday, November 16, 2020 to file an 

appeal.4 However, as appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until November 17, 2020, 

more than 180 days after the May 18, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal 

docketed as No. 21-0185 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.”

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0185 is dismissed.

Issued: December 17, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy 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 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2).

5

Id. at § 501.6(d).
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 Investment Properties Associates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Irving  Schneider,  General Partner and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
Company.

/s/ Irving Schneider
---------------------------------------------
Irving Schneider
General and Special Limited Partner and
Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2003


                                       11
#### Jing Zhu JIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70984.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 7, 2005.

*851Charles J. Kinnunen, Esq., Hagatna, GU, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of file United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jing Zhu Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence and will uphold the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Jin’s testimony conflicted with his application regarding whether he was arrested, and his application and statement omitted his arrest and detention, his wife’s demotion, and that his brother was confined and fired for assisting Jin. *See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS,*955 F.2d 1251, 1256-58 (9th Cir.1992); *see also Wang v. INS,*352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003) (“[s]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [petitionerl’s claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding”).

Because Jin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Jin’s contention that the record was not adequately translated fails because we cannot conclude “that a better translation would have made any difference in the hearing’s outcome.” *See Singh,*367 F.3d at 1144.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 TlnS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 20-F into the Company's Registration
Statement on Form F-3 - File No. 333-85408.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN


/s/ Arthur Andersen

Athens, Greece
April 8, 2002
#### RAYMOND WALLACE SHUMAN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF OF CARSON CITY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7640

June 20, 1974

523 P.2d 841

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, *Herbert F. Ahlswede,*Chief Deputy Attorney General, Carson City; and *Michael E. Fondi,*District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this appeal from an order denying a pretrial petition for habeas corpus we are asked to reverse because, (1) there was *228insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to hold appellant for trial for murder (NRS 200.010, NRS 200.030(1) (b)); and, (2) the charge is proscribed because the prison disciplinary committee has already assessed appellant 29 days punishment “in the hole” for his involvement in the event. We reject both contentions.

1. The challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is directed to several statements made by the deceased and admitted in evidence as dying declarations under NRS 51.335. Appellant argues the statements were not properly qualified as “dying declarations” because when they were made the deceased did not specifically say that he knew he was going to die.

Even if we assume, *arguendo,*the challenged statements were improperly admitted in evidence, other evidence in the record, which is not challenged, is sufficient to meet the requirement of NRS 171.206, that the charged offense was committed by appellant.

2. The trial and conviction of an inmate who has previously been disciplined by prison authorities for the same offense does not constitute double jeopardy. State v. Williams, 493 P.2d 258 (Kan. 1972); State v. Bowling, 459 P.2d 454 (Ore. 1969); United States v. Williamson, 469 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Hedges, 458 F.2d 188 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327 (4th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 893 (1950).

Jeopardy does not attach until “the accused has been placed upon trial, upon a valid indictment, before a competent court, and a jury duly impaneled, sworn, and charged with the case, . . .” Ex Parte Maxwell, 11 Nev. 428, 434 (1876).

The order of the trial court is affirmed.
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 Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, 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 4, 2010
#### Sakson Nursery, Inc. *v.*Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenwich et al.

*James D’Alton Murphy,*in support of the petition.

*Eugene F. McLaughlin,*assistant town attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 4, 1993

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 627 (AC 10526), is denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-126062, 333-86686, 333-86688, 333-53278, 033-88634, 333-41632, 333-41634, 333-41670, 333-28459, 333-07831 and 333-144060) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-131073, 333-135249, and333-138943) on Form S-3 of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated February 29, 2008 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and internal control over financial reporting, whichappear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP 

San Diego, California 

February 29, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PCORDER.COM, INC. FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          54,113
<SECURITIES>                                    27,364
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,934
<PP&E>                                           7,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,127
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,738
<SALES>                                         44,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,012
<CGS>                                           22,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (326)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,327)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.S., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1305

Issued: September 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 24, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a March 12, 2010 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-1305.

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 March 12, 2010 decision was September 8, 2010. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until August 24, 2021, more than 180 days after the March 12, 

 

1 Appellant’s AB-1 form notes that she is appealing from December 18, 2007, October 2 and July 2, 2009,

December 13, 2010, and April 19, 2011purported decisions. The only decision of record is the March 12, 2010 

decision. 

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

2010 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1305 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. 21-1305 is dismissed.

Issued: September 29, 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).
STATE v. Terance Germaine MALACHI

142PA17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 26, 2019

Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Malachi, Terance Germaine.

John R. Green, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of March 2019 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of March 2019."
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31999D0520

**99/520/EC: Commission Decision of 9 July 1999 amending Decision 98/589/EC concerning an extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of eartags to certain bovine animals belonging to the Spanish herd (notified under document number C(1999) 2039) (Text with EEA relevance)***Official Journal L 199 , 30/07/1999 P. 0072 - 0072*

COMMISSION DECISION

of 9 July 1999

amending Decision 98/589/EC concerning an extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of eartags to certain bovine animals belonging to the Spanish herd

(notified under document number C(1999) 2039)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/520/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and the labeling of beef and beef products(1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,

Having regard to the request submitted by Spain,

(1) whereas by Commission Decision 589/98/EC(2) the Kingdom of Spain has been granted an extension up to six months of the maximum period laid down for the application of the eartags to certain bovine animals due to practical difficulties;

(2) whereas following a request submitted by the Spanish authorities, the Annex to this Decision should be amended as to include the whole of the province of Palencia instead of the three "comarcas" mentioned originally in the Annex to Commission Decision 589/98/EC;

(3) whereas this amendment is justified as animals born in this province fulfill the conditions set by that Decision;

(4) whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to the Commission Decision 589/98/EC, at the column "comarca", as regards to the "Provincia Palencia", the references "El Cerrato, Campos and Saldana-Valdavia" shall be replaced by the reference "Toda la Provincia".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 283, 21.10.1998, p. 19.
# L_2007256EN.01002701.xml

| 2.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 256/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/27

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 September 2007

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on certain aspects of air services

(2007/633/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2), in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | By a Decision of 5 June 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By a Decision of 5 June 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community agreement.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with New Zealand on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with New Zealand on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003.

| (3) | The Agreement has been signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/466/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement has been signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/466/EC (2).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2007.

For the Council

The President

R. PEREIRA

---

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 184, 6.7.2006, p. 25.

2

---