alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SEMINOLE POST 

OFFICE, Seminole, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1426

Issued: May 8, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 27, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 2, 2021 merit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1426.

The record reveals that, following the filing of the current appeal, appellant passed away 

on December 9, 2022. By letter dated January 27, 2023, the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, 

pursuant to section 501.3(d) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure,1 advised the deceased employee’s 

son that since his mother had filed the appeal in her lifetime, a letter to the Board was required 

indicating that he would serve as the substitute appellant to allow the appeal to go forward. The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards afforded 30 days for a response. However, no response was received 

in the time allotted.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that section 501.3(d) of its Rules of 

Procedure provides: “Should the Appellant die after having filed an appeal with the Board, the 

appeal may proceed to decision provided there is the substitution of a Appellant that the appeal 

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(d). 
2

proceed to decision by the Board.”

2

 Neither the deceased employee’s son nor any designee 

responded to the request of the Clerk of the Appellate Boards for a substitution of a proper 

appellant. Since there is no substitution of a proper appellant to allow the current appeal to go 

forward, the Board concludes that the appealed docketed as No. 21-1426 must, therefore, be 

dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1426 is dismissed.4

Issued: May 8, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2

Id.; see Albert F. Kimbrell, 4 ECAB 662 (1952) (since “the employee” filed a proper appeal before the Board 

while alive the appeal may proceed to adjudication by the Board if there is a substitution of a proper appellant).

3

See John J. Cremo, 38 ECAB 153 (1986)(the Board dismissed the appeal as there was no substitution of a proper 

appellant following the employee’s death after having filed the appeal).

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. See 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
# L_2007256EN.01003001.xml

| 2.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 256/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/30

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2007/635/CFSP

of 1 October 2007

extending Common Position 2004/694/CFSP on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 11 October 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/694/CFSP (1) on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in order to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to all persons who have been publicly indicted by the ICTY for war crimes but who are not in the custody of the ICTY. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 11 October 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/694/CFSP (1) on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in order to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to all persons who have been publicly indicted by the ICTY for war crimes but who are not in the custody of the ICTY.

| (2) | Common Position 2004/694/CFSP applies until 10 October 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Common Position 2004/694/CFSP applies until 10 October 2007.

| (3) | The Council considers it necessary to renew Common Position 2004/694/CFSP for a further period of 12 months. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Council considers it necessary to renew Common Position 2004/694/CFSP for a further period of 12 months.

| (4) | The implementing Community measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 of 11 October 2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (2), |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The implementing Community measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 of 11 October 2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (2),

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Position 2004/694/CFSP shall be extended until 10 October 2008.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

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

Done at Luxembourg, 1 October 2007.

For the Council

The President

M. LINO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 52. Common Position as last amended by Decision 2007/449/CFSP (OJ L 169, 29.6.2007, p. 75).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 14. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 789/2007 (OJ L 175, 5.7.2007, p. 27).

2

---
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32004H0296

**Council Recommendation of 30 March 2004 on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank***Official Journal L 097 , 01/04/2004 P. 0065 - 0065*

Council Recommendation

of 30 March 2004

on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

(2004/296/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 112(2)(b) and 122(4) thereof, and to Articles 11.2 and 43.3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT:

Mr José Manuel GONZÁLEZ-PÁRAMO be appointed a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2004.

This recommendation shall be submitted for a decision to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Community whose currency is the euro, after consulting the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2004.

For the Council

The President

M. McDowell
Exhibit 23.1

|     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                 
|---- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue, 29th Floor Los Angeles CA 90071 213.670.3200 phone 213.670.3250 fax

April 12, 2007

David Easley, CPA

Controller

Telos Corporation

Re: Request for Consent

Dear Mr. Easley:

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our analysis of the fair market value of Telos Corporations Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock and subordinated
notes as of the valuation dates of December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Telos Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                          |  |                  
|------------------------- |  | -----------------
|NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.
|                          | 
|By:                       |  | LOGO             
|                          |  | William Epstein  
|                          |  | Managing Director
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Implant Sciences Corporation

Wakefield, MA

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No.’s 333-109678, 333-111434, 333-117366) and Form S-8 (No. 333-111117) ofImplant Sciences Corporation of our report dated September 21, 2004, relatingto the financial statements which appears in this Form 10-KSB/A.

 

 
| /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Boston, MA           |

 
|          |
|---------------|
| June 29, 2005 |

 

----
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 Ionics, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
R. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Douglas R. Brown
-----------------------
Douglas R. Brown
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5384 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5384

   To require air carriers to refund passenger baggage fees if such 
  baggage is lost, delayed, or damaged, and require air carriers and 
   ticket agents to include the actual cost of checked baggage when 
                          quoting an airfare.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2010

  Mr. Capuano (for himself, Mr. Baca, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Doyle, Ms. 
     Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
 California, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Grayson, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Shuler, Ms. Pingree of Maine, 
      Ms. Giffords, Ms. Harman, Mr. Rodriguez, Mrs. Maloney, Mrs. 
   Christensen, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Stupak) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require air carriers to refund passenger baggage fees if such 
  baggage is lost, delayed, or damaged, and require air carriers and 
   ticket agents to include the actual cost of checked baggage when 
                          quoting an airfare.

    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 ``Baggage Fee Fairness Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. BAGGAGE FEE REFUNDS.

    Not later than 30 days after arrival of a passenger flight in which 
a piece of baggage is lost, delayed, or damaged, the air carrier for 
such flight shall refund to a passenger any baggage fee collected. For 
purposes of this section, the term ``delayed'' means baggage that is 
not on the conveyor belt or held by the air carrier for retrieval by 
the passenger one hour after arrival of the flight at such passenger's 
final destination.

SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE SALE OF AIRLINE 
              TICKETS.

    Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(c) Notice of Fees.--It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice 
under subsection (a) for an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket 
agent to sell a ticket for air transportation, including sale on the 
Internet or over the phone, to fail, before the sale of the ticket, to 
ask a potential ticket purchaser if such purchaser has one or more 
pieces of baggage to check and to inform the potential purchaser of the 
cost of checking each piece of baggage. In the case of a sale of such a 
ticket on the Internet, the seller may provide an opportunity for a 
purchaser to indicate the number of bags when selecting other flight 
and airport information.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23

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

March 1, 2013

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

Compass Bank, Trustee

300
W. 7thSt., Suite B

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

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, 2012 and in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2012 based on reserve reports prepared by
Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and dated March 1, 2013.



Sincerely,/s/ Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine
      months ended September 30, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sherry L. Spurlock, Chief
      Financial Officer South Texas Oil Company (the “Company”), hereby certify,
      pursuant to Section 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.




Date:
      May 15, 2009


/s/
                Sherry L. SpurlockSherry
                L. SpurlockChief
                Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

          <ARTICLE>    5
          <MULTIPLIER>      1,000
                 
          <S>                                <C>
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997 
          <PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1997 
          <PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1997 
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
          <CASH>                                                    14,905 
          <SECURITIES>                                                   0 
          <RECEIVABLES>                                            319,820 
          <ALLOWANCES>                                              16,432 
          <INVENTORY>                                              295,646 
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         638,060 
          <PP&E>                                                   443,214 
          <DEPRECIATION>                                           146,488 
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,288,431 
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    140,085 
          <BONDS>                                                  737,800 
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0 
          <PREFERRED>                                                    0 
          <COMMON>                                                  50,685 
          <OTHER-SE>                                               115,849 
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,288,431 
          <SALES>                                                  894,013 
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         894,013 
          <CGS>                                                    647,529 
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                                            647,529 
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0 
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                                           2,821 
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        18,494 
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                                           53,835 
          <INCOME-TAX>                                              20,261 
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       33,574 
          <DISCONTINUED>                                                 0 
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0 
          <CHANGES>                                                      0 
          <NET-INCOME>                                              33,574 
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0.53 
          <EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.53 
                  


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

**ST. BERNARD SOFTWARE, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Vincent Rossi, Chief Executive Officer of St. Bernard Software, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofSt. Bernard Software, Inc. (“Registrant”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Registrant’s othercertifying 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 ensurethat 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) 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 anannual 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’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor 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 controlover financial reporting.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42600 & 42959

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ROBERT ALLAN ARMFIELD ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 669

Filed: October 21, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for felony domestic violence, affirmed ; appeal from order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, dismissed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Robert Allan Armfield pled guilty to felony domestic violence . I.C. §§ 18

- 918(2) and

18

- 903(a)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional cha rges were dismissed including an
allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Armfield to a unified
term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years

. Armfield filed an

I.C.R

. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Armfield appeals.2

In Docket No. 42600, Armfield asserts that his sentence is excessive. Sentencing is a

matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be

considered i n evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and need not be
repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct.
App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App . 1984); State

v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length
of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726,
170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standar ds, and having reviewed the record in this
case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
In Docket No. 42959, Armfield appealed, asserting that the district court erred in denying

his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. In his b rief on appeal, Armfield acknowledges that
no additional information was submitted in support of his Rule 35 and, therefore, waives this
issue on appeal. Accordingly, we do not address this issue and Armfield’s appeal is dismissed.

Therefore, Armfield ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed and the appeal

from his Rule 35 motion is dismissed.