alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Corrigendum to Commission Decision of 29 April 2004 amending Commission Decision 97/221/EC as regards the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for meat products transiting or being temporarily stored in the Community

(Official Journal of the European Union L 154 of 30 April 2004)

Decision 2004/427/EC should read as follows:

COMMISSION DECISION

of 29 April 2004                     

amending Commission Decision 97/221/EC as regards the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for meat products transiting or being temporarily stored in the Community

(notified under document number C(2004) 1589)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/427/CE)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), in particular Article 8(5), third indent, and Article 9(2)(b) and (4)(c),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article1

Decision 97/221/EC is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 May 2004.

Article 1 point 1 and the Annex shall only apply from 1 January 2005.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE                        

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

The Annex to Decision 97/221/EEC is amended as follows:

----

(1)OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11.

(2)OJ L 89, 4.4.1997. p. 32.

(3)OJ L 98, 4.4.1997, p. 39. Decision as last amended by Decision 2004/245/EC (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 62).

(4)OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9. Directive as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of Accession (OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 381.).

(5)OJ L 146, 14.6.1979, p. 15. Decision as last amended by Decision 2004/372/EC (OJ L 118, 11.3.2004, p. 45).

(6)OJ L 326, 11.12.2001, p. 44. Decision as last amended by Decision 2004/273/EC (OJ L 86, 24.3.2003, p. 21).

----
EXHIBIT 21
                     SUBSIDIARIES OF INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED

     Listed below are all the subsidiaries of Inter-Tel,  Incorporated,  as well
as the  jurisdiction  under  the  laws of  which  each  was  organized,  and the
percentage  of  the  outstanding  voting  stock  of  each  owned  by  Inter-Tel,
Incorporated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        PERCENTAGE           STATE OR
                                                                         OF VOTING         JURISDICTION
NAME                                                                    STOCK OWNED       OF ORGANIZATION
----                                                                    -----------       ---------------
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>
Inter-Tel Integrated Systems, Inc.                                         100%               Arizona
Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.                                               100%               Arizona
Inter-Tel Leasing, Inc.                                                    100%               Arizona
Inter-Tel Software and Services, Inc.                                      100%               Arizona
Inter-Tel Midwest, Inc.                                                    100%               Delaware
Inter-Tel Incorporated-New Jersey                                          100%               Delaware
Inter-Tel NetSolutions, Inc.                                               100%               Texas
Inter-Tel DataCom, Inc.                                                    100%               Delaware
Southwest Telephone Systems, Inc.                                          100%               New Mexico
American Telcom Corp. of Georgia, Inc.                                     100%               Georgia
Access West, Inc.                                                          100%               Delaware
Inter-Tel Integrated Systems (UK), Ltd.                                    100%               United Kingdom
Inter-Tel Japan, Inc.                                                      100%               Japan
Tri-Com Communications, Inc.                                               100%               North Carolina
Florida Telephone Systems, Inc.                                            100%               Florida
NTL Corporation dba ComNet of Ohio                                         100%               Ohio
Integrated Telecom Services Corporation                                    100%               Kentucky
Telephone Corporation of America, Inc. (Telcoa)                            100%               Maryland
TDI Services Corporation, Technology Dynamics for the 21st Century         100%               Virginia
Executone Inter-Tel Business Information Systems, Inc.                     100%               Arizona
</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LAKE FOREST POST 

OFFICE, Jacksonville, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0563

Issued: March 22, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 8, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a July 15, 2020 nonmerit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0563.

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 July 15, 2020 decision was January 11, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until March 8, 2022, more than 180 days after the July 15, 

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0563 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not explained her failure to 

timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish compelling 

circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of 

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

the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22 -0563, 

must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0563 is dismissed.

Issued: March 22, 2022

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

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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/ William F. TruscottName:
    
    William F. TruscottTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    August 8, 2007/s/ Brian J. McGraneName:
    
    Brian J. McGraneTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    August 8, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0411 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CATHIE WARREN a/k/a CATHIE ODEGAARD,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 29, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 14 2022

07/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0411
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66853-66854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21965]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons


Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal 
inmates in 2004 was $23,267.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 
First St., NW., Washington, DC 20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, (202) 307-2105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 28 CFR part 505 allows for assessment and 
collection of a fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for 
Federal inmates. We calculate this fee by dividing the number 
representing Bureau facilities' monetary obligation

[[Page 66854]]

(excluding activation costs) by the number of inmate-days incurred for 
the preceding fiscal year, and then by multiplying the quotient by 365.
    Under Sec.  505.2, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons determined 
that, based upon fiscal year 2004 data, the fee to cover the average 
cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in 2004 was $23,267.

Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. 05-21965 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
# C_2007234EN.01000501.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4864 — Dubal/Mubadala/Emal JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 234/04)

On 13 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 32007M4864. 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 32007M4864. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### BERNARD THOMAS WALKER, Appellant, v THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7999

August 26, 1975

539 P.2d 461

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Joseph T. Born-venture,*Chief Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Sherman H. Simmons,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The sole issue on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the lower court’s discretionary act of revoking appellant’s probation and executing the original sentence.

The record reflects proof of at least five substantive violations by appellant of the terms and conditions of his probation agreement. While appellant attempted to offer mitigating evidence in his own defense, none of the violations were denied. There was more than ample evidence to justify the court’s action. See Lewis V. State, 90 Nev. 436, 529 P.2d 796 (1974).
# L_2007055EN.01002601.xml

| 23.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 55/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/26

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 182/2007

of 22 February 2007

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 16 to 22 February 2007 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 February 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Opinion issued January 28, 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 20 - 00 301 - CV

——————————— KENDALL SHIVE , Appellant

V. SHIRLEY T. STINSON , Appellee On Appeal from the 335 th District Court Bastrop County, Texas 1 Trial Court Case No. 499 - 335
MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred this appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 20

– 9048 (Tex. Mar. 31, 2020); see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases)
.2

On March 17, 2020, appellant, Kendall Shive, filed a notice of appeal o f the trial court’s December 18, 2019 order granting appellee , Shirley T. Stinson , summary judgment. On July 7, 2020, this appeal was abated , at appellant’s request, to allow the parties an opportunity to finalize the terms of a settlement agreement. The parties, representing that they have reached such an agreement , have filed a joi nt motion to reinstate the appeal and for disposition in accordance with the terms of the agreement
. The motion requests that we reinstate the appeal , vacate the trial court’s December 18, 2019 order , dismiss the case in its entirety, order that all costs on appeal be taxed against the parties who incurred the same , and order that this Court’s mandate issue immediately. No opinion has issued. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 42.1(c). Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion , reinstate the appeal, vacate the trial court’s December 18, 2019 order , and dismiss the case . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a) (2)(A), 43.2( e ) ; see e.g., Jester Venture Ltd. v. Nash , No. 01

- 06

- 00512

- CV, 2006 WL 2042358, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] July 17, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (vacating trial court’s judgment and dismissing case on parties’ agreed motion)
. W e direct the Clerk of this Court that costs are to be taxed against the party who incurred the same. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(d). We further direct the Cl erk of this Court to issue the mandate immediately. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 18.1(c). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower , Countiss, and Farris
.
#### Maria GONZALEZ-GARIBALDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 03-73837.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2005.**

Decided April 1, 2005.

Jaime Jasso, Immigration Appealworks, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service Laguna Niguel, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Esq., and Thomas H. Tousley, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Even if Gonzalez-Garibaldo’s petition for review is timely, her lawyer received notice of the rescheduled hearing, which complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2). *See Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000). Gonzalez-Garibaldo did not advance and cannot make out a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as an exceptional circumstance under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), because she did not follow the procedures established by the BIA in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. (BIA 1988), and adopted by this Court. *See, e.g., Lo v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute an exceptional circumstance, but that a petitioner must substantially comply with the procedures articulated in Lozada). Finally, the BIA was well within its discretion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a brief.

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Raul MINJARES HINOJOZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 04-72903, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Red.R.App.P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Raul Minjares Hinojoza and his wife and their minor daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge determined that petitioners failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying United States citizen relative.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, as well as petitioners’ non-colorable due process challenges to that denial. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

The voluntary departure period is stayed pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.