alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CAROL CLARK, MR. AND MRS. ROBERT L. ANDERSON, ELANORE CAMP, J. M. SHOOK, MR. AND MRS. PAUL CALDWELL, MR. AND MRS. C. B. BITTNER, VIRGINIA HERNDON, RHONDA BLEVINS, MR. AND MRS. ANDREW MOLIVITZ, MR. MORRIS FOX AND MR. ROBERT SMITH v. VERNON RANDOLPH WALLACE, Alias VERNON HENDERSON, SANDRA HAMLIN WALLACE, Alias SANDRA HENDERSON, D/B/A INTERNATIONAL DANCE STUDIO, VERNON RANDOLPH’S DANCE STUDIO

No. 7528DC514

(Filed 19 November 1975)

Appeal and Error § 14 — failure to appeal within 10 days after judgment

The Court of Appeals did not obtain jurisdiction where the appeal was not taken within 10 days after rendition of the judgment appealed from as required by G.S. 1-279, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Allen, Judge.*Order entered 7 April 1975 in District Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 October 1975.

*Henry G. Fisher for plaintiff appellants.*

*S. Thomas Walton for defendant appellees.*

CLARK, Judge.

It appears from the record on appeal that appeal was taken on 22 April 1975 from the order of dismissal rendered in session on 7 April 1975. Plaintiff failed to comply with G.S. 1-279, which requires that appeal must be taken within 10 days after rendition of judgment. Under these circumstances the Court of Appeals does not obtain jurisdiction, and we must dismiss it. *Oliver v. Williams,*266 N.C. 601, 146 S.E. 2d 648 (1966).

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Dallas, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0462

Issued: October 13, 2021

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 February 2, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 27, 2020 merit 

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

Boards docketed the appeal as No. 21-0462. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, 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 her appeal.2 OWCP, in its November 27, 2020 decision, found that a 

$49,834.99 overpayment of compensation was void. As the overpayment determination was

vacated, the November 27, 2020 decision is not adverse. 

The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of 

OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.3 As there is no 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.;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

Supra note 1.
2

final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction

the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0462 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0462 is dismissed.

Issued: October 13, 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 519 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 519

To authorize additional appropriations for the family caregiver support 
  program under the Older Americans Act of 1965, and for the National 
 Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information, for fiscal years 2010, 
                            2011, and 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2009

 Mr. Israel (for himself, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Weiner, 
Ms. Bean, and Ms. Shea-Porter) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to 
 the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize additional appropriations for the family caregiver support 
  program under the Older Americans Act of 1965, and for the National 
 Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information, for fiscal years 2010, 
                            2011, and 2012.

    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 ``Elder Caregiver Support and 
Information Enhancement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FAMILY 
              CAREGIVER SUPPORT PROGRAM UNDER THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT 
              OF 1965.

    Section 303(e)(2) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
3023(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``$173,000,000'' and all that 
follows through ``2021'', and inserting ``and $250,000,000 for each of 
the fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL 
              CLEARINGHOUSE FOR LONG-TERM CARE INFORMATION.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 for the operation of the National 
Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information established by the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 6021(d) of Public 
Law 109-171.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               [Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc., letterhead]




                                 April 1, 2003


San Juan Basin Royalty Trust
TexasBank, Trust Department
2525 Ridgmar Boulevard
Fort Worth, Texas 76116

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the
oil and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities &
Exchange Commission Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 and in the
San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2002
based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and
dated March 21, 2003.

                                       Sincerely,


                                       /s/ Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
# L_2007337EN.01000101.xml

| 21.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 337/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/1

---

DECISION No 1530/2007/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 24 October 2007

on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund according to point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Germany and France submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two disasters caused by a major storm and a tropical cyclone respectively, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Germany and France submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two disasters caused by a major storm and a tropical cyclone respectively,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 172 195 985 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 24 October 2007.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

M. LOBO ANTUNES

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
[No. 24000.

Department Two.

October 17, 1932.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of Fred W. Leadbetter, Plaintiff,*v. The Superior Court for Spokane County *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Griffith, Peek & Coke*and *Post, Russell, Davis & Paine,*for relator.

*Kimball & Blake, Wakefield & Witherspoon,*and *Herbert W. Erskine,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 15 P. (2d) 666.

Per Curiam.

— This is a companion case to that of *State ex rel. Columbia River Paper Mills v. Superior Court, ante*p. 25, 15 P. (2d) 665, just decided, and upon the authority of that case the writ will be denied.

Holcomb, J.

(dissenting) — Por the reasons stated in my dissent in *State ex rel. Bond & Goodwin & Tucker v. Superior Court,*169 Wash. 688, 15 P. (2d) 660, I dissent.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries

The significant subsidiaries of Sears, Roebuck and Co., the names 
under which such subsidiaries do business, and the states or countries 
in which each was organized, were as follows at December 28, 1996:

                                                  Place of
Name                                              Organization 
--------------------------------------            ------------------
Consolidated Subsidiaries:
Circle of Beauty                                  Delaware
Maxserv. Inc.                                     Texas
Orchard Supply Hardware Corporation               Delaware
Sears Canada Inc.                                 Canada
   Sears Acceptance Company Inc.                  Canada
Sears DC Corp.                                    Delaware
Sears Logistics Services, Inc.                    Delaware
Sears National Bank                               United States
Sears Overseas Finance N.V.                       Netherlands Antilles
Sears Receivables Financing Group, Inc.           Delaware
Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.                    Delaware
Sears, Roebuck de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.            Mexico
Sears, Roebuck de Puerto Rico, Inc.               Delaware
Sears Wishbook, Inc..                             Delaware
Western Auto Supply Company                       Delaware
  Tire America Inc.                               Delaware
  NTW Incorporated                                Delaware
83 other companies                                Various


   The Company owns 20% to 50% of the outstanding voting securities of 
28 companies which are accounted for on an equity method.

   The Company has investments in a number of other corporations representing 
substantial percentages (but not more than 20 percent) of their outstanding 
capital stock.  The Company disclaims control of any such companies.
Order entered March 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01260-CR

DONOVAN WADE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-58212-T

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 24, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel Jeffery 

Buchwald; (3) Mr. Buchwald has not abandoned the appeal; (4) Mr. Buchwald’s explanation for 

the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload and a recent illness; and (4) Mr. Buchwald 

requested thirty more days to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. 

Because the brief is already more than three months overdue, no further extensions will be 

granted. If appellant’s brief is not filed within the time specified, the Court will remove Jeffery 
Buchwald as appellant’s attorney and order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent 

appellant.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Rick Magnis, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
added by 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.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





Date:  August 12, 2005              By: /s/ Albert J. Finch
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

t0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144744

ELLEANE RAJI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 144744 COA: 307678 Genesee CC: 06-083780-CZ GENESEE COUNTY LAND BANK and GENESEE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32

# 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 Furniture Brands International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Howard,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
EX-10.86


  Exhibit 10.86

  Domino’s Pizza, Inc.

  Independent Director Compensation Schedule

  The following table sets forth the current compensation received by independent directors of Domino’s Pizza, Inc. for service on the Board of Directors, Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee and Inclusion & Diversity Committee:

  					
	  
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Director Compensation Summary
	  

	Annual Retainer
	   
	Amount
	  

	Board of Directors
	   
	$
	80,000
	  

	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	   
	 
	 
	 

	Chairperson
	   
	$
	30,000
	  

	Member
	   
	$
	15,000
	  

	 
	 

	Compensation Committee
	   
	 
	 
	 

	Chairperson
	   
	$
	20,000
	  

	Member
	   
	$
	10,000
	  

	 
	 

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	   
	 
	 
	 

	Chairperson
	   
	$
	15,000
	  

	Member
	   
	$
	10,000
	  

	 
	 

	Inclusion & Diversity Committee
	   
	 
	 
	 

	Chairperson
	   
	$
	15,000
	  

	Member
	   
	$
	10,000
	  

	 
	 

	Annual Equity Award
	   
	Value
	  

	Target grant date fair value
	   
	$
	160,000
#### MILDRED KATLEMAN, Appellant, *v.*BELDON KATLEMAN, Respondent.

No. 4097

May 20, 1958.

325 P.2d 420.

*142
      *George M. Dickerson,*of Las Vegas, and *Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp,*of Los Angeles, California, for Appellant.

*Woodbitrn, Forman, Wedge, Blakey and Thompson,*of Reno, and *Leo K. Gold,*of Beverly Hills, California, for Respondent.

OPINION

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from order of the court below denying the motion of appellant, as the wife in an action for divorce, for allowances and alimony pendente lite under NRS 125.040. The matter is before us on the motion of the respondent husband to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order in question is not an appealable order under Rule 72 (b) NRCP.

This proposition has been well established in this state. Engebretson v. Engebretson, 73 Nev. 19, 307 P.2d 115; Harrison v. Harrison, 54 Nev. 369, 17 P.2d 693; Kapp v. Kapp, 31 Nev. 70, 99 P. 1077, 21 Ann. Cas. 599; Accord: Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 73 Nev. 143, 311 P.2d 735.

Appellant, in opposition to the motion to dismiss, points out that the cited cases all involved orders *granting*allowances or alimony pendente lite, while this *143appeal involves an order of denial. She contends that the rule announced in those cases is founded upon the obvious need of the destitute wife for protection in litigation of this sort; that the giving of such protection requires that this appeal be held proper.

Certainly protection of the wife is the reason for the statutory provision for allowances in NRS 125.040. The rule against appealability, however, is based upon the proposition that the order is not a final determination upon the question of the existence or extent of the wife’s right to allowances and cannot, therefore, be regarded as a final judgment upon these matters. The order is no more final when it opposes the position of the wife than when it favors it. If appeals are to be allowed in cases of this sort the remedy is through amendment of Rule '72(b) NRCP.

The motion must be granted.

Appeal dismissed.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Denton, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1062

Issued: May 25, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

David Miller, for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 8, 2021 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a May 19, 

2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1062.

In a letter dated February 10, 2022 and received February 18, 2022, appellant, through his 

representative, 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 dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1062 is dismissed.

Issued: May 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00068-CR

Corey J. DUKES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-4699

Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 15, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Cory J. Dukes, pled no contest to the charge of possession of a controlled 

substance. Appellant’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on community supervision 

for two years. Later, the State moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision. At a 

hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pled “true” to violating a condition of his community 

supervision. On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be 
04-10-00068-CR

- 2 -

advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant was informed of his right to review the 

record. Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a 

pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a brief. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal 

is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we 

GRANT appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Do not publish