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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, FRANKFORD POST 

OFFICE, Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0794

Issued: May 26, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 28, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an August 12, 2020 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 21-0794.

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 August 12, 2020 decision was February 8, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until April 28, 2021, more than 180 days after the August 12,

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0794 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

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

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. 21-0794 is dismissed.

Issued: May 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### EDWARD WHITMAN, aka JAMES JONES, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7572

December 23, 1974

529 P.2d 792

*435
      *Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, of Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General; *Roy A. Woof ter,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, J.:

Edward Whitman, appellant, pleaded guilty to the charges of attempted burglary and battery with intent to commit rape. On denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, Whitman seeks reversal contending that the district court erred in denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and contending that his plea had been involuntarily entered because he was threatened with an habitual criminal charge.

This court held in Fine v. Warden, 90 Nev. 166, 521 P.2d 374 (1974), that there is a right to an evidentiary hearing *436when seeking post-conviction relief as to the issue of whether or not an alleged promise was made by the State and not fulfilled upon which the guilty plea was based. That case is clearly distinguishable from the case before the court in that Whitman’s claim concerns a question of law as to whether a guilty plea based on a threat of being charged with an habitual criminal charge is coerced as compared to the factual issue of whether a promise was made or not. There is no right to an evidentiary hearing when the issue before the court is a legal issue and not a factual issue. Forrester v. United States, 456 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 856 (1972); Barnett v. United States, 439 F.2d 801 (6th Cir. 1971).1

A guilty plea is not coerced merely because motivated by a desire to avoid the possibility of a higher penalty (Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970); Conger v. Warden, 89 Nev. 263, 510 P.2d 1359 (1973)) and this court has held that a plea motivated by the desire to avoid being charged under the habitual criminal act was not coerced. Schoultz v. Warden, 88 Nev. 135, 494 P.2d 274 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, Schoultz v. Hocker, 469 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1972); Stocks v. Warden, 86 Nev. 758, 476 P.2d 469 (1970). As to Whitman’s statement at the time he entered the plea that he was not in fact guilty but was pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the possibility of a stiller charge, the Supreme Court of the United States in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), declined to attribute any significance in such statements.

Affirmed.

Thompson, C. J., and Mowbray, Gunderson, and Bat-jer, JJ., concur.

Cases deal with right to evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. 2255, federal statute concerning relief from erroneous sentence.
#### Ralph H. Cassella *v.*Department of Liquor Control

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 738 (AC 11337), is denied.

*910
      *Charles A. Eggert,*in support of the petition.

*Martin Rosenfeld,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1993
<Page>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.29





January 23, 2002


Dr. Bernard Beer
President
DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc.
433 Hackensack Avenue
Hackensack NJ, 07601

RE: EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Dr. Beer:

         This will confirm the extension of your December 10, 1998, Employment
Agreement with DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. through December 10, 2004. All terms and
conditions therein shall remain in full force and effect, except for the
increase of your base compensation to $275,000 per year, and the increase of
your car allowance to $1400 per month.

Sincerely,


/s/ Zola Horovitz
----------------------------
Dr. Zola Horovitz
Compensation Committee



ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


/s/ Bernard Beer
----------------------------
Dr. Bernard Beer
President
Exhibit 12
           INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

            Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (unaudited)

                                 (in thousands)


<TABLE>
                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED 
                                      --------------------   ------------------
                                      Nov. 30,     Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,  Nov. 30,
                                         1998         1997       1998      1997
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<C>                                   <S>          <S>        <S>       <S>
Earnings from continuing operations 
  before income taxes                 $15,363      $19,733    $   882   $30,310
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                 6,343        6,495     18,271    21,303
Less: Capitalized interest                (50)           -        (81)       (9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings available to cover
  fixed charges                       $21,656      $26,228    $19,072   $51,604
================================================================================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       3.41         4.04       1.04      2.42
================================================================================

(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:


                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      --------------------    -----------------
                                      Nov. 30,     Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,  Nov. 30,
                                         1998         1997       1998      1997
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest expense, gross               $ 4,003      $ 4,162    $11,438   $14,120
Rentals (Interest factor)               2,340        2,333      6,833     7,183
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total fixed charges                 $ 6,343      $ 6,495    $18,271   $21,303
===============================================================================

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32007M4520 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32007M4520

**Commission Decision of 23/01/2007 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4520 - INDUSTRI KAPITAL / ATTENDO) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal 025 , 03/02/2007 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Brussels, 23.01.2007

SG-Greffe(2006) D/200245

To the notifying party

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

Subject: Case No. COMP/M.4520 - INDUSTRI KAPITAL / ATTENDO

Notification of 08.12.2006 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1]

Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C311, 19.12.2006, p.60

1. On 08.12.2006, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 by which Industri Kapital (the Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Attendo Group AB ("Attendo", Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for undertaking Industri Kapital : a private investment firm ;

- for undertaking Attendo : a service provider of care to elderly and disabled persons, children and youth.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed

Philip LOWE

Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

--------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Telos Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 annual report, fairlypresent 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 annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 controlsand 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 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter 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 and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Exhibit 11.3


                                 EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 PRIMARY COMPUTATION
                ($ in millions, except share and per share amounts)



                                                 Quarter Ended
                                                  December 31,        
                                              ---------------------
                                               1996          1995
                                              --------      -------   
                                
Basis for computation of earnings per 
 common and common equivalent shares:
   Earnings from continuing operations        $ 45.2        $ 34.7
   Deduct dividends on 4 Percent 
    cumulative preferred stock                   (.1)          (.1)
                                              -------       ------- 
   Earnings from continuing operations
    available to common shareholders            45.1          34.6
   Discontinued operations                      (1.7)         22.6
                                              -------       -------
  
   Available for common shareholders          $ 43.4        $ 57.2 
                                              =======       ======= 



Number of shares:
   Weighted average shares outstanding    74,114,694    75,484,367
   Shares issuable upon exercise of
    stock options,net of shares assumed
    to be repurchased                      1,680,717       913,383
                                          ----------    ----------
                                          75,795,411    76,397,750
                                          ==========    ========== 


Earnings per common share:
   Continuing operations                       $ .59      $ .45
   Discontinued operations                      (.02)       .30
                                               ------     -----

   Net earnings                                $ .57      $ .75
                                               ======     =====
```

                                                                                  Exhibit 4

                            **NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                     AND SUBSIDIARIES

                     INSTRUMENTS DEFINING RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS,
                                   INCLUDING INDENTURES**

The following instruments of Navistar Financial Corporation defining the rights of
security holders are incorporated herein by reference:

4.1       Guarantee,  dated  as  of  December  8,  2000,  made  by  Navistar  International
          Corporation,  in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank  (survivor  in the merger  between
          JP  Morgan  and The Chase  Manhattan  Bank),  as  Administrative  Agent,  for the
          lenders  parties to the Credit  Agreement,  dated as of December  8, 2000,  among
          Navistar  Financial  Corporation and  Arrendadora  Financiera  Navistar,  S.A. DE
          C.V., Servicios Financieros Navistar,  S.A. DE C.V. and Navistar Comercial,  S.A.
          DE C.V., the Lenders,  Bank of America,  N.A., as syndication  agent, The Bank of
          Nova Scotia, as documentation agent, and the Administrative Agent.

4.2       Indenture  dated as of March 25, 2002 by and  between the Corporation and The BNY
          Midwest Trust Company,  as Trustee,  for 4.75%  Subordinated  Exchangeable  Notes
          due 2009 for $200,000,000.  Filed on Registration No. 333-87716.
```
# C_2007125EN.01000401.xml

| 6.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4604 — Capman/Walki Wisa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 125/07)

On 31 May 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 32007M4604. 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 32007M4604. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Austin ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-3861CR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 16, 2005.

Barry D. Leiwant, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Marc P. Berger, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Celeste L. Koeleveld, Assistant United States Attorney; David N. Kelley, United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellee.

Present: SOTOMAYOR, RAGGI, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lynch, J.) is REMANDED.

Defendant-appellant Austin Roberts (“appellant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on July 12, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lynch, J.). Appellant contends that application of the federal sentencing guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment rights under *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Upon inquiry by this Court, the government submitted a letter dated March 9, 2005 indicating its consent to a remand for reconsideration of whether to resentence in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and *United States v. Crosby,*397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005).

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Booker*and this Court’s decision in *Crosby,*this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in conformity with *Crosby.*

Any appeal taken from the district court’s actions following this remand can be initiated only by filing a new notice of appeal. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 3, 4(b).

A party will not waive or forfeit any appropriate argument on remand or any appeal post-remand by not filing a petition for rehearing of this remand order.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Maritime Administration 

# AGENCY:

Maritime Administration, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Secretarial Extension of Authority; Marine War Risk Insurance Under Title XII of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

# SUMMARY:

                        On December 12, 2001, President George W. Bush approved the provision of vessel war risk insurance by memorandum for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Transportation. The approval was for the provision by the Secretary of Transportation of insurance or reinsurance of vessels (including cargoes and crew) entering the Middle East region against loss or damage by war risks in the manner and to the extent approved in Title XII of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 as amended (Act), 46 U.S.C. App. 1281,                         *et seq.*

                        The President delegated to the Secretary of Transportation the authority vested in him by section 1202 of the Act, to approve the provision of insurance or reinsurance after the expiration of 6 months and to bring this approval to the attention of all operators and to arrange for its publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

On October 14, 2005 the Secretary of Transportation approved the extension of the authority to provide such insurance for a 1 year period, beginning December 13, 2005. 

Authority:49 CFR 1.66. 

Dated: October 27, 2005.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-21853 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
# L_2004190EN.01S00301.xml

| 28.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 190/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 190/s3

---

On 28 April 2004, the Commission adopted Decision C(2004) 1582 final amending Directive 2001/32/EC of 8 May 2001 recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community.

Pending its publication in the OJ, the text is available at:

| | http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/organisms/protected/index_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/organisms/protected/index_en.htm

---