alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
** **

|   | (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/                  Denise L. Ramos                  |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Denise                  L. Ramos                      |
|   | Title:                  Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | Furniture                  Brands International, Inc. |
|   | August                  9, 2005                       |
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER/FACILITY,

West Palm Beach, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1312

Issued: September 29, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 1, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a March 17, 2020 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1312.

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 March 17, 2020 decision was September 13, 2020. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until September 1, 2022, more than 180 days after 

the March 17, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1312 is 

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

1

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

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with 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. 22-1312, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1312 is dismissed.

Issued: September 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, 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.” Id. 

at § 501.6(d).
#### Theodore L. Cavender, et al., to the use of Mary E. Voshell, et al., *vs.*Thomas Cavender.

*Sheriff's Sale Set Aside—Practice.*

Inquisitors must have personal knowledge, or they must inquire as to the value of the land from sworn witnesses, and they must themselves be sworn.

*(November 27, 1897.)*

Eore, C. J., and Spruancb and Boyce, J. J., sitting.

*Peter L. Cooper, Jr.,*for the rule.

*Harry Emmons*contra.

Superior Court, New Castle County,

November Term, 1897.

Rule to show cause'why a sheriff’s sale should not be set aside. The defendant filed several exceptions to the validity of the sheriff’s sale, the one relied upon being as follows:

“ *Second.*That on September 27th, A. D. 1897, the said plaintiffs, through their attorney in open court, secured a rule of inquisition upon the lands of your petitioner, said rule being returnable within thirty days from the day of issuing the same. That under the said rule the sheriff aforesaid appointed John F. Campbell and Lewis Dickey inquisitors. That neither of said inquisitors was personally acquainted with the land described in said writ, and without taking any evidence as to the value of the rents and profits of said land, and without taking any evidence as to the amount of judgments against your deponent, signed and made their return that the rents and profits of the said land would not be sufficient to pay the said debt in said writ mentioned within the period of seven years. Your petitioner therefore showeth that the return of the inquisition is a fraud upon your petitioner and is wholly void.”

The two inquisitors above named were called to the witness stand by Mr. Cooper and testified that they were not personally acquainted with the land described in the writ of inquisition, and without taking any evidence as to the value of the rents and profits of said land or as to the amount of judgments against the defend*87ant, and without being sworn, they merely signed the said inquisition as a matter of form, relying simply upon certain statements made by the deputy sheriff.

Bore, C. J:—

Bet the rule be- made absolute. Inquisitors must have personal knowledge, or they must inquire as to the value of the land from sworn witnesses, and they must themselves be sworn.
American Banknote Corporation

|STEVEN G. SINGER
Chairman and CEO | 560 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
Phone: (201) 568-4400 Fax (201) 568-4577
|--------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 4, 2002
Mr. Sidney Levy
Avenida Vieira Souto 620/1020
Rio de Janeiro Brazil
Dear Sidney:

Reference is made to your letter dated January 2nd, 2002
regarding the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement by and among you, American
Banknote Corporation, ABN Equities Inc., and American Bank Note Company Grafica
E Servicios Ltda (ABN Limitada), dated January 9, 2001, pursuant to
which you were entitled to purchase certain quotas or shares of ABN Limitada.

As a consequence of certain changed circumstances, including
without limitation the decreased value of the Brazilian Real against the Unites
States Dollar, and per our prior discussions, we confirm our agreement to annual
such agreement in its entirety.

/s/ Steven G. Singer
By:   Steven G. Singer

January 2nd. 2002
001.01.02.02

Steven Singer
Chairman - American Banknote Corporation
560 Sylvan Avenue, 3rd floor
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
U.S.A.
Dear Steven,

In January 2001 we signed a stock purchase agreement in which I
would acquire 1,6% of the capital stock of ABN Limitada owned by ABN Corp,
subject to the confirmation of the restructuring plan of the Parent Company.

As the terms of the contract are not beneficial to me right now,
due to the abnormal variation of the exchanging rate agreed before, and as the
restructuring plan of the Parent Company was not yet been confirmed, I would
like to cancel that agreement immediately.

I hereby ask your permission for the annulment of that contract.
Yours truly,/s/ Sidney Levy
Sidney Levy
# L_2007317EN.01008301.xml

| 5.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 317/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 317/83

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2007/791/CFSP

of 4 December 2007

implementing Joint Action 2007/749/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2007/749/CFSP of 19 November 2007 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1) and, in particular, Article 12(1) thereof, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 19 November 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/749/CFSP establishing that the EUPM is to be continued until 31 December 2009. The financial reference amount for 2008 and 2009 is to be decided on an annual basis. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 19 November 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/749/CFSP establishing that the EUPM is to be continued until 31 December 2009. The financial reference amount for 2008 and 2009 is to be decided on an annual basis.

| (2) | The mandate of the EUPM will be implemented in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The mandate of the EUPM will be implemented in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the implementation of Joint Action 2007/749/CFSP shall be EUR 14 800 000 for 2008.

2.   The expenditure financed by the amount referred to in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union, with the exception that any pre-financing shall not remain the property of the Community.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2007.

For the Council

The President

F. TEIXEIRA DOS SANTOS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 303, 21.11.2007, p. 40.

1

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 13, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 13, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0106. AARON JEROME BROOKS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

12CR62 12CR63
Exhibit 23  LOGO March 1, 2022 San Juan Basin Royalty Trust PNC Bank, Trustee 116 Allegheny Center Mall Pittsburgh, PA 15212 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 and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2021 and in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2021 based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and dated March 1, 2022. Sincerely,  LOGO CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
#### Dennis White *v.*Philip Kampner et al.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14789.

*Stuart I. Edelstein,*in support of the petition.

*Joseph A. Mengacci,*in opposition.

Decided June 4, 1993

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 73 (AC 11294), is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Where parties to a contract make the authority of an arbitrator to act conditional on the completion of two mandatory negotiation sessions prior to arbitration, and it is undisputed that neither mandatory negotiation session ever took place, and it is undisputed that the defendants never waived their challenge to the arbitrator’s authority to act, did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court’s vacating an arbitrator’s award?”
#### JUAN ENRIQUE VENTUREIRA, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8217

May 30, 1975

535 P.2d *1286*

*H. Dale Murphy,*Washoe County Public Defender, and *William Puzey,*Deputy Public Defender, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Jack Alian,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant prosecution of appellant for attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to commit murder.

*357The only probative evidence of record is that appellant fired two shots from a pistol in a public area. We deem such evidence totally insufficient to meet the probable cause requirement of NRS 171.206 that any of the charged crimes were committed, or that appellant committed them. Cf. Hooker v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 89, 506 P.2d 1262 (1973).

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court, and order that appellant be freed from custody unless, within fifteen (15) days, the state elects to bring new and appropriate charges.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Honolulu, HI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1624

Issued: January 28, 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 September 10, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 19, 2020 merit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1624.

In a letter dated December 14, 2020, and received December 16, 2020, appellant requested 

that the appeal be dismissed.

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

dismissal 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. 20-1624 is dismissed.

Issued: January 28, 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
<PAGE>

        Exhibit 23.1 - Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in (1) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-62725) pertaining to the registration of 400,000 shares of
Common Stock in the Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, (2) the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62727) pertaining to the registration
of 1,500,000 shares of Common Stock under Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc. 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (3) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-62731) pertaining to the registration of 3,500,000 shares of Common Stock
under Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan and (4) the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67475) pertaining to the registration
of 1,289,329 shares of Common Stock of Insignia Financial Group, Inc.(f/k/a
Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc.) under the Richard Ellis Group Limited 1997
Unapproved Share Option Scheme of our report dated March 5, 1999 with respect to
the consolidated and combined financial statements of Insignia Financial Group,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1998.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Greenville, South Carolina
March 29, 1999
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ETHAN REIMERS

,

A ppellant,

v

.

VANESSA REIMERS

,

A ppellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 101

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

o f El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2018DCM1777 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ethan Reimers, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal because the parties have

settled the dispute between them. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(1). We gran t the motion and dismiss

the appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

June 5, 2019

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

St. Louis, IL, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0170

Issued: November 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Larrissa Ann Parde, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On November 15, 2021 appellant, through his representative, filed an appeal from a 

May 14, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0170.

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 14, 2021 decision was November 10, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 15, 2021, more than 180 days after the 

May 14, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22 -0170 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. 22-0170 is dismissed.

Issued: November 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
**Exhibit32.2**

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 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 ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, David C. Treinen, the President and Chief Operating Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

 

1.                           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| Date:   November  9, 2004 | /s/ DAVID C. TREINEN     |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                | David  C. Treinen        |
|                                | President  and           |
|                                | Chief  Operating Officer |

 

 

 

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         122,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  341,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               464,348
<PP&E>                                         210,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (78,095)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,449,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,414,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        34,868
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,449,028
<SALES>                                         14,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,589
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,459
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>