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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<CASH>                                          28,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  834,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,674
<INVENTORY>                                    587,035
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,507,636
<PP&E>                                       2,183,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                 914,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,753,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,364,574
<BONDS>                                        587,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,623,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,753,789
<SALES>                                     10,224,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,224,509
<CGS>                                        9,573,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,573,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               266,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                351,547
<INCOME-TAX>                                   119,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            231,747
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   231,747
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.48


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1269

Issued: September 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 8, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a January 11, 2022 nonmerit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1269.

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 January11, 2022 decision was July10, 2022. As appellant 

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

January 11, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1269 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. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by 

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

OWCP within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 22-1269, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1269 is dismissed.

Issued: September 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

at § 501.6(d).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21379]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicant

Intercontinental Logistics, Inc., 500 E. Carson Plaza Drive, Suite 107, 
Carson, CA 90745, Officer: Ki Chul Kim, President, (Qualifying 
Individual).

Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

La Gaviota Shipping, 468 Roseville Avenue, Newark, NJ 07107, Manuel S. 
Alvarez, Sole Proprietor.
IGX International, Inc., Acuarela St., <greek-i>3A, Martinez Nadal 
Highway, Guaynabo, PR 00966, Officers: Lemuel Toledo Gonzalez, 
President, (Qualifying Individual), Providencia Gonzalez, Vice 
President.

    Dated: October 21, 2005.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21379 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
# L_2007004EN.01000701.xml

| 9.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 4/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 4/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 8/2007

of 8 January 2007

providing for the rejection of applications for export licences for certain milk products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006 of 17 August 2006 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

Whereas:

The quantity covered by applications for advance fixing of refunds on certain milk products is of great importance and could give rise to speculation. It has therefore been decided to reject all applications for export licences of such products made on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 January 2007,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for export licences with advance fixing of refunds for products falling within CN codes 0402 21 11 9300, 0402 21 11 9500, 0402 21 11 9900, 0402 21 19 9300, 0402 21 19 9500, 0402 21 19 9900, 0402 21 91 9100, 0402 21 91 9200, 0402 21 91 9350, 0402 21 99 9100, 0402 21 99 9200, 0402 21 99 9300, 0402 21 99 9400, 0402 21 99 9500, 0402 21 99 9600, 0402 21 99 9700, 0402 29 15 9300, 0402 29 15 9500, 0402 29 19 9300, 0402 29 19 9500, 0402 29 19 9900, 0402 29 99 9100, 0402 29 99 9500, 0402 91 11 9370, 0402 91 19 9370, 0402 91 31 9300, 0402 91 39 9300, 0402 99 11 9350, 0402 99 19 9350, 0403 90 13 9300, 0403 90 13 9500, 0403 90 13 9900, 0403 90 33 9400, 0404 90 23 9130, 0404 90 23 9140, 0404 90 23 9150, 0404 90 83 9130, 0404 90 83 9150 and 0404 90 83 9170 made on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 January 2007 shall be rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 January 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 8 January 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 234, 29.8.2006, p. 4.

2

---
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">New York Infinity Health Care, LCSW, P.C., as Assignee of SCHNAYA MONROE, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered December 23, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify defendant's law firm.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The motion was supported by, among other things, an affirmation from a partner in the law firm representing defendant, attesting, based on her personal knowledge, to plaintiff's failure to appear. Plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the law firm representing defendant, pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), on the ground that a member of the firm was a necessary witness in this case. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Renelique Med. Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Viviana Laureano v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-419 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.</p><p>Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: February 03, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 5, 2001

Before

Hon. Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

Hon. Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge

Nos. 00-3004 and 00-3006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KENNETH P. KONTNY and JO ANN

L. KONTNY,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District

Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin.

No. 00 CR 4

John C. Shabaz, 

Chief Judge.

Order Correcting Opinion

The slip opinion in this case issued on January 4, 2001, is corrected as follows:

P. 6, eighth line: “argued” is changed to “argue”.

P. 8, seventh line before last paragraph break: “had firm indications” is changed to

“did not have firm indications”.

SO ORDERED.
#### ROBERT C. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. SHERIFF OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7924

November 18, 1974

527 P.2d 1200

*372
      *Charles L. Garner,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Roy A. Woof-ter,*District Attorney, and *Addeliar D. Guy,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On April 19, 1974, a Cook County, Illinois, Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Robert Martinez with murder, aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery and conspiracy.

Martinez was found in Nevada, and the Governor of Nevada, pursuant to a request from the Governor of Illinois, issued an executive warrant providing for the arrest and surrender of Martinez to Illinois authorities.

After Martinez was arrested, he filed habeas corpus proceedings in the district court challenging (1) the efficacy of the Illinois indictment, and (2) the format of the extradition papers. Habeas was denied, and the same contentions are reurged in this appeal.

*3731. Habeas corpus is the proper process for testing the validity of the arrest and detention by the authorities of the asylum state for extradition purposes; however, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus tests only that detention. In essence the rule is that the court may determine whether a crime has been charged, and whether the fugitive was in the demanding state at the time the alleged crime was committed. Sheriff v. Randono, 89 Nev. 521, 522, 515 P.2d 1267, 1268 (1973). A court in the asylum state cannot look into the efficacy of the indictment in the demanding state.

2. NRS 179.183 requires that the presentation of certain documents of the demanding state “substantially charge” the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state. The purpose of the documents required by the statute is to establish probable cause for believing that the offenses were committed in the demanding state by the accused. Legal technicalities are disregarded. Sheriff v. Thompson, 85 Nev. 211, 452 P.2d 911 (1969). Here the requisition papers were unquestionably sufficient to meet these requirements.

Extradition procedures contemplate the prompt return of a fugitive from justice upon a request from the demanding state. United States Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 2.; Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, NRS 179.177-NRS 179.235.

Affirmed. Remittitur shall issue forthwith.
# L_2007157EN.01001701.xml

| 19.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 157/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 157/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 11 June 2007

appointing a member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority

(2007/420/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 25(1) thereof,

Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Commission of the European Communities,

Having regard to the views expressed by the European Parliament,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is vital to ensure the independence, high scientific quality, transparency and efficiency of the European Food Safety Authority (‘Authority’). Cooperation with Member States is also indispensable. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is vital to ensure the independence, high scientific quality, transparency and efficiency of the European Food Safety Authority (‘Authority’). Cooperation with Member States is also indispensable.

| (2) | A seat as a member of the Management Board of the Authority, appointed until 30 June 2008, has become vacant as a result of resignation. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as a member of the Management Board of the Authority, appointed until 30 June 2008, has become vacant as a result of resignation.

| (3) | The candidatures have been examined with a view to appointing a new member of the Management Board on the basis of the documentation provided by the Commission and in the light of the views expressed by the European Parliament with the aim of securing the highest standard of competence, a broad range of relevant expertise, for instance in management and in public administration, and the broadest possible geographic distribution within the Union, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The candidatures have been examined with a view to appointing a new member of the Management Board on the basis of the documentation provided by the Commission and in the light of the views expressed by the European Parliament with the aim of securing the highest standard of competence, a broad range of relevant expertise, for instance in management and in public administration, and the broadest possible geographic distribution within the Union,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Milan POGAČNIK is hereby appointed a member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority for the period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.

Article 2

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

Done at Luxembourg, 11 June 2007.

For the Council

The President

H. SEEHOFER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 575/2006 (OJ L 100, 8.4.2006, p. 3).

1

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS

SERVICE, Corpus Christi, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0285

Issued: December 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 15, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a February 16, 2021 nonmerit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0285.

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 February 16, 2021 decision was August 15, 2021. As 

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

the February 16, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0285

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

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

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.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0285 is dismissed.

Issued: December 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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

Id. at § 501.6(d).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) by OptimumBank
Holdings, Inc. (the Company), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 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: May 12, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Albert J. Finch                     
|                   |  |     |  | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 545 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 545

 To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in 
   the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 
   National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an 
 international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the 
    establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2009

 Mr. Simpson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in 
   the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 
   National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an 
 international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the 
    establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area Act''.

SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION 
              AREA.

    (a) Renaming.--Public Law 103-64 is amended--
            (1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-1(2)), by inserting 
        ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey National 
        Conservation Area''; and
            (2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
        inserting ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey 
        National Conservation Area''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
    (c) Technical Corrections.--Public Law 103-64 is further amended--
            (1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
        striking ``(hereafter referred to as the `conservation 
        area')''; and
            (2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii-3)--
                    (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking 
                ``Conservation Area'' and inserting ``conservation 
                area''; and
                    (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``Visitors 
                Center'' and inserting ``visitors center''.
                                 <all>
```