alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IMPERIAL PALACE HOTEL, Appellant, v. LILAYNE CLEMENTS, Respondent.

No. 16371

February 20, 1986

714 P.2d 564

*Jerry Collier Lane,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Charles J. York,*State Industrial Attorney, and *James M. Stuart,*Deputy State Industrial Attorney, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This case centers on whether late filing of a claim for benefits under the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) may be excused under NRS 616.600(6). We hold that it may.

On April 10, 1983, Lilayne Clements, a maid at the Imperial Palace Hotel, strained her back while cleaning a tub. She immediately informed her employer, and completed a notice of industrial accident. However, she did not seek medical treatment for over five months, initially treating the injury herself with heat and rest.

Her claim for SIIS benefits was denied based on failure to file a claim within 90 days as required by NRS 616.500(4). The appeals officer reversed, and ordered payment of benefits.1 The *16district court affirmed, and from that judgment the self-insured employer appeals.

The dispute arises from an apparent contradiction in the language of 616.500(6), which states:

> Failure to give notice or to file a claim for compensation within the time limit specified in this section is a bar to any claim for compensation under this chapter, but such failure may be excused by the insurer on one or more of the following grounds:

> (a) That notice for some sufficient reason could not have been made.

> (b) That failure to give notice will not result in an unwarrantable charge against the state insurance fund.

> (c) That failure to give notice was due to the employee’s or beneficiary’s mistake or ignorance of fact or of law, or of his physical or mental inability, or to fraud, misrepresentation or deceit.

While the opening language indicates that “[fjailure to give notice *or to file a claim .*. . may be excused ...” (emphasis added), the specific excuse provisions omit reference to “claims” while providing excuses for late giving of notice. This creates an ambiguity in the statute, which must be resolved in reference to its overall purpose. We have repeatedly stated that workmen’s compensation statutes should be liberally construed in order to accomplish the legislature’s goal of providing compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses. *See, e.g.,*SIIS v. Jesch, 101 Nev. 690, 709 P.2d 172 (1985); Nyberg v. Nevada Industrial Comm’n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3 (1984). With this in mind, we hold that the excuse provisions of NRS 616.500(6) apply to both late giving of notice and late filing of claims. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

1

Although it appears that certain language in the appeals officer’s decision was inadvertently inserted from another case, a review of the decision as a whole reveals that it was based on a finding of justifiable excuse.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7674

RONALD FLOYD JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM R. DAVIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-97-1116-6-23AK)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Floyd Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eric Petersen,

William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 8, 1997;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on November 14, 1997, which

is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note

a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31(b)**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Krish S. Krishnan, certify that:
  1.
I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 26, 2004 of New River Pharmaceuticals Inc.;  2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)
[Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E.]  (c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. 
 ****Date: November 8, 2004
By:
/s/ Krish S. KrishnanKrish S. KrishnanChief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary
(Principal financial and accounting officer)
##### 



Exhibit 32

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Conexant
Systems, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 3, 2003

/s/ DWIGHT W. DECKER

Dwight W. Decker
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ J. SCOTT BLOUIN

J. Scott Blouin
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Deloris R. ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 04-3336.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 8, 2005.

Before SCHALL, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*Judgment*

PER CURIAM.

*This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:*

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL VA

MEDICAL CENTER, Aurora, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1095

Issued: July 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 15, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a September 21, 2021 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1095.

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 September 21, 2021 decision was March 20, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until July 15, 2022,more than 180 days after the

September 21, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1095 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. 22-1095, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1095 is dismissed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

at § 501.6(d).
# C_2007308EN.01001301.xml

| 19.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4939 — Uberior/L&R/Versailles Holdco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 308/04)

On 12 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4939. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4939. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 9, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 0 1 0 45

- CV

____________ DONALD M. HOLDEN, Appellant

V.

JOHN C. OSBORNE AND THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. OSBORNE , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009

- 02891



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is a cross

- appeal from a judgment signed August 25, 2011

. The notice of

cross

- appeal was filed on November 30, 2011. To date, our records show that appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P.
5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cas es unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on2

Multidistrict Litigation, Misc . Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in court of appeals); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same).

On January 12 , 2012, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing f ee on or before January 23, 2012 , or the cross

- appeal would be dismissed. T he appellate filing
fee has not been paid

. Accordingly, the cross

- appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3 (c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Jamison and McCally

.
#### ANTONIO ALEX GARCIA, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 8249

July 31, 1975

538 P.2d 160

*Antonio Alex Garcia,*in *pro per,*Carson City.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *Patrick B. Walsh,*Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.

*493OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Antonio Alex Garcia pleaded guilty to a felony charge of grand larceny and was sentenced to a term of five years in the Nevada State Prison.

This appeal is taken from an order summarily denying Garcia’s *pro se*petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.

It appears from the record that there is no need to appoint counsel or to require briefing as the district court’s decision denying relief was premature; the record of the evidentiary hearing does not adequately show that Garcia’s plea of guilty was indeed voluntary and knowing. See Heffley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 573, 516 P.2d 1403 (1973).

We reverse and remand with instructions to resolve Garcia’s allegations in light of the transcript of the trial court’s canvass when the guilty plea was entered, and in the light of such other evidence as either party may adduce upon evidentiary hearing.

The office of the State Public Defender is hereby appointed to represent Garcia in the further proceedings.
<PAGE>

                           [RYDER SCOTT LETTER HEAD]



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



     As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P., hereby
consents to the use of our reserve reports dated as of December 31, 1998,
December 31, 1999, and December 31, 2000 and to all references to our firm
included in or made a part of the Bellwether Exploration Company's Form 10-K to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 29, 2001.




                                       /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
                                       -----------------------------
                                           RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


March 29, 2001
Houston, Texas
# C_2008056EN.01000201.xml

| 29.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4809 — France Telecom/MID Europa Partners/ONE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 56/03)

On 21 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4809. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4809. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 14-0096

BOB E. WOODY, THE RANCH,

LLC AND HECTOR H. CARDENAS,

JR.

v.

J. BLACK'S, LP AND J. BLACK'S,

GP, LLC §

§

§

§

§

§ Travis County,

7th District.

March 14, 2014

Petitioner s' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, BOB E. WOODY, THE RANCH, LLC AND

HECTOR H. CARDENAS, JR., pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 24th day of April, 2014

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Kathy Sandoval, Deputy Clerk
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 992/2004

of 17 May 2004         

amending Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus, Russia or Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 8, 11(3), 21 and 22(c) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A.   PROCEDURE

1.   Measures in force

2.   Investigation

3.   Parties concerned by the investigation

B.   PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION

C.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1.   Submissions of interested parties in exporting countries

2.   Comments received from the Community Industry

3.   Comments received from Member States

4.   Assessment

5.   Conclusion

6.   Undertakings

D.   AMENDMENT OF REGULATION (EC) No 3068/92

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92, the following Article shall be inserted:

‘Article 1 a

1.   Imports declared for release into free circulation shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1, provided that they are produced by companies from which undertakings are accepted by the Commission and whose names are listed in the relevant Commission Regulation, as from time to time amended, and have been imported in conformity with the provisions of the same Commission Regulation.

2.   The imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty on condition that:

Article 2

The text as set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to Regulation (EC) No 3068/92.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 May 2004.

For the Council

The President

B. COWEN            

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)OJ L 112, 11.5.2000, p. 4.

(3)OJ L 308, 24.10.1992, p. 41. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 969/2000.

(4)OJ C 70, 20.3.2004, p. 15.

----

ANNEX

‘ANNEX

The following elements shall be indicated on the commercial invoice accompanying the company's sales of potassium chloride to the Community which are subject to any Undertaking:

----