alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

              We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i)
Registration Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iii)
Registration Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; (iv)
Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996; (v)
Registration Statement No. 333-48697 on Form S-8 filed March 26, 1998; (vi)
Registration Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998; and (vii)
Registration Statement No. 333-83021 on Form S-3 filed July 16, 1999, and in the
related Prospectuses, of our report dated August 12, 1999 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 1999.


                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 3, 1999
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.M., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Baltimore, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0888

Issued: June 25, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

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 May 20, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal from a December 11, 2017

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0888.

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 December 11, 2017 decision was June 9, 2018. As appellant 

did not file an application for review with the Board until May 20, 2021, more than 180 days after 

the December 11, 2017 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0888

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. 21-0888 is dismissed.

Issued: June 25, 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).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 14

- 00866

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .G. F.

, A.F.F. and E.H.F., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, T exas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 05746

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 27, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal

. The motion is granted,

and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICHARD L. LUFT,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________

2022-1034

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0432-21-0090-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Richard L. Luft moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and, in response to the court’s March 9, 2022 order, informs the court that he elects for transfer of this 

mixed-case to the United States District Court for the 

Case: 22-1034 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2022
2 LUFT v. ARMY

Northern District of Texas and requests a refund of the 

docketing fee that he previously submitted.* 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to refund the filing 

fee.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and the court’s March 

9, 2022 order, this case and all transmittals are transferred 

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

April 7, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

* To the extent Mr. Luft indicates his desire to withdraw his petition for review pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board, the court notes that he must file a 

motion at the Board seeking such relief. 

Case: 22-1034 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2022
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN HENRY BROWN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4592 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 19, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Nicholas R. Thompson, Judge. John Henry Brown, pro se. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 235 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2018); McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Brown v. State, 56 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Doby v. State, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Luchak v. State, 606 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SMITH,JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Douglas A. PACKETT, also known as Peckerwood, Appellant.

No. 04-3742.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2005.

Decided April 14, 2005.

Robert Francis Cryne, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Douglas A. Packett, Omaha, NE, pro se.

Deborah D. Cunningham, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Packett (Packett) challenges the sentence imposed by the district court after Packett pled guilty to charges of (1) conspiring to distribute cocaine base and methamphetamine, and (2) possessing a firearm in connection with that offense. Judgment was entered on September 16, 2004, but Packett’s notice of appeal was not filed until November 8, 2004. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i) (requiring criminal defendant to file notice of appeal within 10 days of entry of judgment). Although Packett filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file his notice of appeal, which the district court granted, the motion was filed more than 30 days after the 10-day appeal period expired. *Cf.*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4) (“Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may ... extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by [] Rule 4(b).”). Because the district court’s authority to extend the time to file the notice of appeal ended before November 8, Packett’s notice of appeal is untimely. *Id. United States v. Carter,*990 F.2d 402, 403 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam).

Because Packett’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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

May 14, 2003


                                       11
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       194,604,358
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   2,577,325
<MORTGAGE>                                  14,674,647
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  368,844
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             222,570,010
<CASH>                                       5,424,683
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             373,881
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      30,141,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             298,368,054
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            221,703,744
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         23,657,239
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,960,559
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,834,935
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,448,454
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,050,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               298,368,054
<PREMIUMS>                                  35,546,511
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         11,368,340
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (33,434)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 316,610
<BENEFITS>                                  16,918,730
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                (1,455,174)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        28,276,158
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,458,313
<INCOME-TAX>                                   968,328
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,489,985
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,489,985
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Lawrence Cleary *vs.*William Sohier & another, trustees

Suffolk.

March 10.

April 5, 1876.

Colt & Lord, JJ., absent.

A workman, who had contracted to lath and plaster a building for a certain snm, had lathed the building and put on the first coat of plaster, when, without his fault, it was destroyed by fire. *Held,*that he could recover for his work, under a count for work done and materials furnished.

Contract on an account annexed to recover $474, with inter est, for work done and materials furnished. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and to this court on appeal, upon an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows:

*211The plaintiff made an oral contract with Henry Famum, of whose estate the defendants are trustees, to lath and plaster a certain building on Federal Street for the sum of forty cents per square yard. No agreement was made, and nothing was said, as to terms or times of payment, but only that the work was to be done for forty cents per yard. The plaintiff lathed and put on the first coat of plaster a few days before the great fire of November, 1872, and was ready and willing and in good faith intended to put on the second or skim coat, so called, and would have begun November 11, so to do, when the fire of November 9 and 10 wholly destroyed the building. There was no negligence, default or bad faith on the part of either of the parties, and the fire was an unavoidable casualty. The amount charged by the plaintiff, to wit, $474, is a reasonable and proper charge for the part of the work done; and, if the plaintiff is entitled to recover anything, as matter of law, under these facts, he is entitled to recover that sum and interest from November 10,1872. The plaintiff did not demand said sum until after the fire, and not till some months thereafter, and did no more work under the contract. Farnum died soon after the fire, and the defendants represent him and his estate, and are liable if he was liable.

If the plaintiff was entitled to recover, either under his contract or under a count for work done and materials furnished, judgment was to be entered for the said sum of $474 and interest ; otherwise, for the defendants.

The Superior Court ordered judgment for the defendants; and the plaintiff appealed.

*B. E.*Perry, for the plaintiff.

*C. P.*Crorely, for the defendants.

By the Court.

The building having been destroyed by fire without fault of the plaintiff, so that he could not complete his contract, he may recover under a count for work done and materials furnished. *Lord*v. *Wheeler,*1 Gray, 282. *Wells*v. *Calnan,*107 Mass. 514, 517. *Judgment for the plaintiff.*
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5391 

To revise the requirements regarding congressional testimony for the Federal 

Housing Finance Oversight Board. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2010 

Mr. HENSARLING (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, and Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To revise the requirements regarding congressional testimony 

for the Federal Housing Finance Oversight Board. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Housing Fi5 nance Oversight Board Increased Transparency Act of 

6 2010’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY. 

8 Subsection (e) of section 1313A of the Federal Hous9 ing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 

10 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4513a) is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5391 IH

1 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘On an annual basis’’ and 

3 inserting ‘‘Not less frequently than annually’’; 

4 and 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘Congress’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘the Committee on Financial Services of the 

7 House of Representatives and the Committee 

8 on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 

9 Senate’’; and 

10 (2) by inserting after and below paragraph (6) 

11 the following new flush matter: 

12 ‘‘If at any time either enterprise receives funds from the 

13 Department of the Treasury under the Amended and Re14 stated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated 

15 September 26, 2008, amended May 6, 2009, and further 

16 amended December 24, 2009, between the United States 

17 Department of the Treasury and each enterprise, the 

18 Board shall testify before each of the Committees referred 

19 to in the preceding sentence before the conclusion of the 

20 calendar quarter during which such enterprise received 

21 such funds regarding the matters referred to in this sub22 section and such receipt of funds, and any testimony pur23 suant to this sentence during a year shall be considered 

24 to satisfy the requirement, for such year, under the preVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:51 May 26, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5391.IH H5391

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5391 IH

1 ceding sentence to testify not less frequently than annu2 ally.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.c. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (“ABOS”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chapel Hill, NC. The nature and scope of ABOS's standards development activities are: Development of educational standards and standards for evaluating the qualifications and knowledge of physicians seeking voluntary certification in orthopaedic surgery. 

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 05-2159 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
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 New Bastion Development, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Elliot Bellen, chief executive officer of the Company and chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.



|                     |     |                                                                       
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 16, 2012 | By: | /s/ Elliot Bellen                                                     
|                     |     | Elliot Bellen
Chief Executive Officer                                 
|                     |     |                                                                       
|Date: April 16, 2012 | By: | /s/ Elliot Bellen                                                     
|                     |     | Elliot Bellen
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|                     |     |