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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CLEVELAND POST 

OFFICE, Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0359

Issued: March 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 13, 2021 merit 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0359.

In a letter dated February 15, 2022, appellant requested that the appeal be withdrawn.

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

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

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

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0359 is dismissed.

Issued: March 1, 2022

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
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Memphis, TN, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0732

Issued: October 6, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 4, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported March 24, 2022 decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0732.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

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

(FECA).1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of 

the date appellant filed his appeal.2 The only document dated March 24, 2022 found in the case 

record is a Board order, not a decision of OWCP.

3

 The most recent OWCP decision of record is

1

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

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3 To the extent that this appeal constitutes a timely petition for reconsideration of the Board’s March24, 2022 order 

dismissing appeal in Docket No. 21-0467, the Board will address the petition by separate order. 
2

dated February 11, 2020.

4

 As there is no final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days 

of the filing of this appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal as assigned Docket No. 22-0732 

must be dismissed.5 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0732 is dismissed.

Issued: October 6, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board affirmed the February 11, 2020 decision. Docket No. 20-0812 (issued October 19, 2020), petition for 

recon. dismissed, Docket No. 20-0812 (issued March 24, 2022). 

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

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David A. Tayeh,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jostens, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)     designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during this period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)     all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 14, 2004 | /s/   David  A. Tayeh            |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                     | David A. Tayeh                                  |
|                     | Sr. Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21071]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Business and Operations Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Business and Operations Advisory Committee (9556).
    Date/Time: November 17, 2005; 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST). 
November 18, 2005; 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (EST).
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
555-II.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Mary Ann Birchett, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 292-8100.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice concerning issues related 
to the oversight, integrity, development and enhancement of NSF's 
business operations.
    Agenda: November 17, 2005:
    PM: Welcome and Introduction of new members; Updates--Office of 
Budget, Finance, and Award Management, Office of Information and 
Resource Management, Chief Information Officer activities. 
Presentation and Discussion--NSF Strategic Planning.
    November 18, 2005:
    AM: Review of Facilities Subcommittee meeting. Presentation and 
Discussion--Grants Management Line of Business, Center of 
Excellence; Meeting with NSF Director; Committee Discussion; 
Planning for next meeting; feedback; other business.

    Dated: October 18, 2005.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21071 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to18U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mrs. FieldsFamous Brands, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the 13 weeks endedSeptember 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Companycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

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

 

 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

November 13, 2007

 

 
| /s/  Steven K. Passey           |
|---------------------------------|
| Steven K. Passey                |
| Chief Accounting Officer        |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

 

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906has been provided to Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and will be retained byMrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Gurmej SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71254.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Don G. Scroggin, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Gurmej Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, *see Wang v. INS,*352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, given that Singh lied about whether he had been convicted of any crime in the United States and that Singh’s testimony and declarations were inconsistent with respect to his father’s political involvement as well as when and how he obtained various supporting documents. *See id.*at 1256-58.

Because the IJ provided these and other specific, cogent reasons for his adverse credibility determination, we are not compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. *See id.*at 1257-58. Accordingly, Singh did not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Singh’s claims under the CAT were based on the same testimonial and documentary evidence that the IJ determined to be not credible in connection with Singh’s asylum claim, the IJ also properly denied Singh protection under the CAT. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This 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.
ARMSTRONG v. WILSON COUNTY, et al.

41P17-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Arthur O. Armstrong, for Armstrong, Arthur O.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of December 2018 by Plaintiff for Petition for Rehearing:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR 

STATION, Alameda, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0737

Issued: June 2, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 13, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an August 4, 2021 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0737.

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 4, 2021 decision was January 31, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until April 13, 2022, more than 180 days after the August 4, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0737 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant contends that the filing of his 

appeal was delayed because it took him some time to acquire needed information from the Social 

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

Security Administration, and because he had contracted COVID-19. Although appellant has 

offered reasons to explain the failure to timely file an appeal, he has not provided supporting 

documentation sufficient to establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final 

adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board 

concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0737, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0737 is dismissed.

Issued: June 2, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. ” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
H. R. 5139 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To provide for the International Organizations Immunities Act to be extended 

to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the 

International Civilian Office in Kosovo. 

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 ‘‘Extending Immunities to the 

Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 

the International Civilian Office in Kosovo Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IMMUNITIES ACT TO THE 

OFFICE OF THE HIGH REPRESENTATIVE IN BOSNIA AND 

HERZEGOVINA AND THE INTERNATIONAL CIVILIAN OFFICE 

IN KOSOVO. 

The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 

288 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

section: 

‘‘SEC. 17. The provisions of this title may be extended to the 

Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and 

to its officers and employees) or the International Civilian Office 

in Kosovo (and to its officers and employees) in the same manner, 

to the same extent, and subject to the same conditions, as such 

provisions may be extended to a public international organization 

in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty 

or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such 

participation or making an appropriation for such participation. 

Any such extension may provide for the provisions of this title 

to continue to extend to the Office of the High Representative 

in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and to its officers and employees) 

or the International Civilian Office in Kosovo (and to its officers 

and employees) after that Office has been dissolved.’’. 

SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE. 

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 

with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined 

by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 

PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 
H. R. 5139—2 

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Charles Randall Kay, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00169

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Franklin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F8162 ).

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Charles Randall Kay, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 9, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62312-62313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21623]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7990-8]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Enviromental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122 (h)(1) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the RSR Corporation Superfund 
Site, the Murmur Corporation, and the Murmur Leasing Corporation.
    The settlement requires the settling parties to pay $278,273 as 
payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. The 
settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to sections 106 and 
107 of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9607. The settling parties also agree to 
assign and implement institutional controls.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 30, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Barbara Aldridge, 6SF-AC, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733, or by calling (214) 665-2712. 
Comments should reference the RSR Corporation Superfund Site, Dallas, 
Texas, and EPA Docket Number 6-03-05, and should be addressed to 
Barbara Aldridge at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Malone, 1445 Ross Avenue,

[[Page 62313]]

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-8030.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 05-21623 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1



                          [Letterhead of Ernst & Young]


ABN AMRO Holding N.V.
Attn Mr. H. van Duijn
HQ 1210
Gustav Mahlerlaan 10
1082 PP AMSTERDAM




Amsterdam, April 9, 2002


Subject:  LETTER OF CONSENT ABN AMRO HOLDING N.V.


Dear Sir,

Enclosed please find our manually signed consent relating to the incorporation
by reference of our Auditors' Report dated March 22, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of ABN AMRO Holding N.V., The Netherlands for
the year ended December 31, 2001, included in the Form 20-F, dated April 9,
2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Yours faithfully,
for Ernst & Young Accountants



  /s/ P. Laan                            /s/ C. B. Boogart
------------------                     ---------------------
P. Laan                                C.B. Boogaart


<Page>







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following documents of our
report dated March 22, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of ABN AMRO Holding N.V., The Netherlands for the year ended December
31, 2001, included in this Form 20-F, dated April 9, 2002.

o   Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-49198) of ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
    pertaining to the issuance of up to USD 500,000,000 aggregate principal
    amount of debt securities, dated November 22, 2000;
o   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81400) of ABN AMRO Holding N.V.,
    pertaining to the ABN AMRO WCS Holding Company 401(k) Savings Plan dated
    January 25, 2002;
o   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84044) of ABN AMRO Holding N.V.,
    pertaining to the ABN AMRO Key Employee Equity Programme with Co-Investment
    Plan and ABN AMRO Incorporated US Retention Plan dated February 28, 2002.


Amsterdam, The Netherlands
April 9, 2002


/s/ Ernst & Young
-------------------------
Ernst & Young Accountants




                                      -2-