alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,051,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,704,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,755,000
<PP&E>                                     186,816,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,327,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             217,088,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,330,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       54,525,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       922,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,613,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               217,088,000
<SALES>                                     46,854,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,854,000
<CGS>                                       25,849,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,849,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,323,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,763,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,610,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,153,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,051,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,102,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

Lexington, KY, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0166

Issued: April 12, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 November 15, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an

October 31, 2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0166.

In a letter dated and received January 30, 2023, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

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

dismissal of the appeal should be granted.2 Accordingly, 

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 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).
2

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

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-0166 is dismissed.

Issued: April 12, 2023

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
** **

|   | (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/                Wilbert G. Holliman              |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Wilbert G.                Holliman             |
|   | Title:                Chief Executive Officer       |
|   | Furniture                Brands International, Inc. |
|   | May                15, 2007                         |
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SYKESVILLE POST 

OFFICE, Sykesville, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0308

Issued: February 1, 2023

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 December 8, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a December 8, 2021 nonmerit 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0308.

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 December 8, 2021 decision was June 6, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until December 8, 2022, more than 180 days after the

December 8, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0308 is 

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

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

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).
2

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. 23-0308, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0308 is dismissed.

Issued: February 1, 2023

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).
EXHIBIT 23.2


The Board of Directors
Bull Run Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-91296 and 33-91298) on Form S-8 of Bull Run Corporation of our report
dated February 10, 1997 with respect to the balance sheets of Capital Sports
Properties, Inc. as of June 30, 1996 and December 31, 1995, and the related
statements of earnings, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
six-months ended June 30, 1996 and each of the years in the two-year period
ended December 31, 1995, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Bull Run Corporation.



                                            /s/  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 21, 1997
#### COMR. OF INSURANCE v. RATING BUREAU

No. 69 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 549.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 November 1976.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery

    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
#### Paul R. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-15569.

D.C. No. CV-03-01129-FJM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

Paul R. Jones, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.

Rebecca Winterscheidt, Erica Rocush, Snell *&*Wilmer, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Paul R. Jones appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his action under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 25 U.S.C. § 1301*et seq.,*alleging that his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of race and age. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the district court’s denial of a FedR.Civ.P. 60(b) only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. *Molloy v. Wilson,*878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

Jones moved for reconsideration on the ground that his failure to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss was excusable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because, in any event, ICRA provides no federal cause of action, outside habeas corpus, against a tribe or its officers. See *Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,*436 U.S. 49, 59, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978).

We do not reach claims that were not raised in Jones’ complaint. *See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills,*911 F.2d 367, 372-73 (9th Cir.1990).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION302(a) CERTIFICATION**

I, MarkC. McBride, certify that:

1.                     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC;

2.                     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                     The registrant'sother certifying 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 have:

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                     The registrant'sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant'sauditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)                    All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)                   Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 9, 2006 |                     |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 | /s/ Mark C. McBride      |
|                 | Mark C. McBride          |
|                 | Chief Accounting Officer |

 

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CARE, Denver, CO, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0380

Issued: June 3, 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 January 13, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 28, 2021 merit decision of

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0380.

In a letter dated April 18, 2022 and received April 29, 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. 22-0380 is dismissed.

Issued: June 3, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JOSTENS,
INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                       859
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,129)
<INVENTORY>                                     94,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,138
<PP&E>                                         190,176
<DEPRECIATION>                               (124,210)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 378,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          241,490
<BONDS>                                          3,864
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,887
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   378,318
<SALES>                                        105,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,399
<CGS>                                           60,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   221
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,493)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,027)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
----

----

I Veröffentlichungsbedürftige Rechtsakte

----

VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 1080/2004 DER KOMMISSION

vom 8. Juni 2004

zur Festlegung pauschaler Einfuhrwerte für die Bestimmung der im Sektor Obst und Gemüse geltenden Einfuhrpreise

DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN —

gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,

gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 3223/94 der Kommission vom 21. Dezember 1994 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Einfuhrregelung für Obst und Gemüse (1), insbesondere auf Artikel 4 Absatz 1,

in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:

HAT FOLGENDE VERORDNUNG ERLASSEN:

Artikel 1

Die in Artikel 4 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 3223/94 genannten pauschalen Einfuhrwerte sind in der Tabelle im Anhang zur vorliegenden Verordnung festgesetzt.

Artikel 2

Diese Verordnung tritt am 9. Juni 2004 in Kraft.

Diese Verordnung ist in allen ihren Teilen verbindlich und gilt unmittelbar in jedem Mitgliedstaat.

Brüssel, den 8. Juni 2004

Für die Kommission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Generaldirektor für Landwirtschaft

----

(1)ABl. L 337 vom 24.12.1994, S. 66. Verordnung zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1947/2002 (ABl. L 299 vom 1.11.2002, S. 17).

----

ANHANG

zu der Verordnung der Kommission vom 8. Juni 2004 zur Festlegung pauschaler Einfuhrwerte für die Bestimmung der im Sektor Obst und Gemüse geltenden Einfuhrpreise

----

(1)  Nomenklatur der Länder gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2081/2003 der Kommission (ABl. L 313 vom 28.11.2003, S. 11). Der Code „999“ steht für „Verschiedenes“.

----

----

VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 1081/2004 DER KOMMISSION

vom 8. Juni 2004

zur Abweichung von der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1431/94 hinsichtlich der Geltungsdauer von Einfuhrlizenzen im Geflügelfleischsektor

DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN —

gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,

gestützt auf die Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2777/75 des Rates vom 29. Oktober 1975 über die gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Geflügelfleisch (1), insbesondere auf Artikel 3 Absatz 2,

in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:

HAT FOLGENDE VERORDNUNG ERLASSEN:

Artikel 1

Abweichend von Artikel 5 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1431/94 wird die Geltungsdauer der für den Zeitraum vom 1. Januar 2004 bis 31. März 2004 ausgestellten Lizenzen für aus Thailand eingeführte Erzeugnisse der Gruppe 2 bis 30. September 2004 verlängert.

Artikel 2

Diese Verordnung tritt am siebten Tag nach ihrer Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union in Kraft.

Diese Verordnung ist in allen ihren Teilen verbindlich und gilt unmittelbar in jedem Mitgliedstaat.

Brüssel, den 8. Juni 2004

Für die Kommission

Franz FISCHLER

Mitglied der Kommission

----

(1)ABl. L 282 vom 1.11.1975, S. 77. Verordnung zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 806/2003 (ABl. L 122 vom 16.5.2003, S. 1).

(2)ABl. L 156 vom 23.6.1994, S. 9. Verordnung zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1043/2001 (ABl. L 145 vom 31.5.2001, S. 24).

(3)ABl. L 36 vom 7.2.2004, S. 59.

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JARNAIL SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72956

Agency No. A029-462-617

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in

FILED

DEC 28 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
/Research 2 07-72956

absentia. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314,

1316 (9th Cir. 1997), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because Singh failed to demonstrate “reasonable cause” for failing to appear at the

October 11, 1990, hearing. See id.

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contentions regarding the legal

sufficiency of the notice of hearing and the obligation to advise the immigration

court of any change of address, because Singh failed to raise those issues before

the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In light of our disposition, Singh’s request for fees is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.