alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 65919)    
                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 27, 2005, 8 a.m. to October 27, 2005, 6 p.m. Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD,  20814 which was published in the                     Federal Register                     on October 7, 2005, 70 FR 58725-58728.                

The meeting will be held October 28, 2005. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 20, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho Jr.,

Acting  Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-21667 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT 

COMMAND, Fort Carson, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1249

Issued: March 8, 2023

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 August 26, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a purported July 29, 2022 decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1249.

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 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current

appeal.3 The only decision found in the case record dated July 29, 2022 is a Board order assigned 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

Docket Nos. 22-0145 and 20-1647.

4

 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over 

which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as Docket No. 22-1249 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 22-1249 is 

dismissed.5

Issued: March 8, 2023

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

4 The Boards decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).

5 To the extent that appellant’s August 26, 2022appeal may be construed as a timely petition for reconsideration of 

the Board’s July 29, 2022 order in Docket No. 22-0145, the Board notes that the petition for reconsideration will be 

separately considered under Docket No. 22-0145. See id. at § 501.7(a).
Exhibit 12

               INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (unaudited)

                                (in thousands)



                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                    Aug. 31,  Aug. 31,    Aug. 31,  Aug. 31,
                                       1996      1995        1996      1995
Earnings before income taxes        $ 5,707   $ 3,928     $ 4,625   $10,950
Plus: Fixed charges (1)               6,801     7,620      13,481    15,362
Less: Capitalized interest              (10)      (51)        (19)      (95)

Earnings available to cover
  fixed charges                     $12,498   $11,497     $18,087   $26,217

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges     1.84      1.51        1.34      1.71


(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:

                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                    Aug. 31,  Aug. 31,    Aug. 31,  Aug. 31,
                                       1996      1995        1996      1995
Interest expense, gross              $4,548    $5,144     $ 8,937   $10,445
Rentals (Interest factor)             2,253     2,476       4,544     4,917
  Total fixed charges                $6,801    $7,620     $13,481   $15,362
#### DEREK WESTENBARGER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7897

July 23, 1975

537 P.2d 1195

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Joseph T. Bonaventure,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General; *George Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

A jury found Derek Westenbarger guilty of rape and robbery and he is now incarcerated in the Nevada State Prison. In this appeal Westenbarger’s principal contentions suggest *479we should reverse his conviction because: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict; (2) his counsel was not permitted to argue matters that were not in evidence; and (3 ) the photographic line-up conducted prior to the time he was charged was impermissibly suggestive.

1. “Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case, as the record indicates exists in this case, the reviewing court will not disturb the verdict nor set aside the judgment.” Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 434, 529 P.2d 206, 207 (1974).

2. During final summation to the jury the trial judge permitted appellant’s counsel to argue that many convictions have resulted from mistaken identification; however, the judge rejected a request that counsel be permitted to read an article on identification from an issue of Time Magazine, noting that there had neither been a request to (a) introduce the article in evidence, nor (b) to have any expert testify as to the veracity of the content of the article. Although appellant contends exclusion of the article was error, he has cited no authority in direct support of the contention; accordingly, it is rejected.

3. The contention that the photographic line-up was imper-missibly suggestive finds no support in this record. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972); Baker v. State, 88 Nev. 369, 498 P.2d 1310 (1972). Other contentions are equally without merit.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
DECLARATION OF RAPHAEL ROSINGANA

      Pursuant to 28 U.S.C & 1746, I, Raphael Rosingana, hereby declare under
penalty of perjury that the following declaration is true and correct:

1.    My name is Raphael Rosingana, and I have personal knowledge of the facts
      contained in this Declaration.

2.    I am over the age of twenty one, I am fully competent to make this
      Declaration.

3.    I know Stephen Reeder, and am aware that Mr. Reeder is a defendant in a
      federal bank fraud case styled United States v. Stephen Reeder, et al.,
      Case No. SA CR 01-0169-M-LRL (C.D. Cal.)(the "Reeder Case").

4.    It is my understanding that the Reeder Case involves, among other things,
      purported transactions of Empire Management Services, Inc. ("Empire") in a
      bank account (the "Empire Account") that was allegedly used to facilitate
      an alleged bank fraud between 1994 and 1996.

5.    Mr. Reeder is an authorized signatory on the Empire Account, and was a
      signatory during the time period between October 2003 and February 2004.

6.    For a valid lawful purpose, Mr. Reeder caused a total of $53, 150.00 (the
      "Subject Funds") to be transferred via check or wire transfer from the
      Empire Account to PayCard Solutions, Inc. ("PayCard") for the benefit of
      CEC Industries, Inc. ("CEC") in eight separate transactions between
      October 2003 and February 2004. The dates and amounts of these transfers
      are reflected on the schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein by
      reference as Exhibit A.

7.    The subject Funds that were deposited into the Empire Account and
      subsequently transferred to PayCard were derived from the proceeds of an
      oil well lease transaction involving the Fullerton Oil Fields in Texas
      that Brooks Wellington Ltd. arranged with Piper Daniel Limited ("Piper")
      in 2003. Piper was sole source of the Subject Funds.

8.    None of the Subject Funds were obtained, directly or indirectly, from any
      criminal activity or illegal source.

9.    None of the Subject Funds were obtained, directly or indirectly, from any
      of the transactions alleged in the Indictment in the Reeder Case, or as a
      result of any of the transactions alleged in the Indictment in the Reeder
      Case.

10.   None of the Subject Funds have a connection, directly or indirectly, to
      any of the allegations in the Indictment in the Reeder Case, and have no
      connection, directly or indirectly, with any transaction of the Empire
      that allegedly occurred between 1994 and 1996 in the Reeder Case.
<PAGE>

11.   I have read the foregoing Declaration, and the statements set forth herein
      are true and correct.

      FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT


      Dated: July 22,2004                      /s/ Raphael Rosingana
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                    Raphael Rosingana, Declarant
# C_2007071EN.01003401.xml

| 28.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/34

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4560 — ONEX/Eastman Kodak Health Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 71/12)

On 15 March 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 32007M4560. 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 32007M4560. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2007282EN.01001501.xml

| 24.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/15

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 16 November 2007

on the European Capital of Culture event for the year 2011

(2007/C 282/11)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular its Article 14,

1

Having regard to the Selection Panel report of September 2007 submitted to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council in accordance with Article 14 paragraph 2 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC,

Considering that the criteria referred to in Article 14 paragraph 3 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,

Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission of the 23 October 2007,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Turku and Tallinn are designated as ‘European Capital of Culture 2011’ in accordance with Article 14 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC.

Article 2

The designated cities shall take the necessary measures in order to ensure the effective implementation of Article 3 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC.

Done at Brussels, 16 November 2007.

For the Council

The President

I. PIRES DE LIMA

---

(1)  OJ L 304, 3.11.2006, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

 

I, Scott D. Guffey, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of Cubic Energy, Inc.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report.

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report.

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

(a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and,

 

(c) disclosedin this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial    reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theAudit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and,

 

(b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: September 29, 2008

 
| Signature: | /s/ Scott D. Guffey     |   |
|------------|-------------------------|--------|
|       | Scott D. Guffey, C.F.O. |   |

 

----
# L_2007059EN.01006201.xml

| 27.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 59/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/62

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 195/2007

of 26 February 2007

opening the buying-in of butter in certain Member States for the period 1 March to 31 August 2007

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 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that if market prices for butter in one or more Member States, over a representative period, are less than 92 % of the intervention price, intervention agencies have to buy in butter. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that if market prices for butter in one or more Member States, over a representative period, are less than 92 % of the intervention price, intervention agencies have to buy in butter.

| (2) | On the basis of the market prices communicated by the Members States, the Commission has observed, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999, that the prices in Spain, Ireland and Portugal have been below 92 % of the intervention price for two consecutive weeks. Intervention buying-in should therefore be opened in those Member States, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the market prices communicated by the Members States, the Commission has observed, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999, that the prices in Spain, Ireland and Portugal have been below 92 % of the intervention price for two consecutive weeks. Intervention buying-in should therefore be opened in those Member States,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby open in the following Member States:

| — | Spain |
| --- | --- |

—

Spain

| — | Ireland |
| --- | --- |

—

Ireland

| — | Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Portugal.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 26 February 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 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1919/2006 (OJ L 380, 28.12.2006, p. 1).

2

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 20, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130918 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ELSIE FOSTER-SMITH, Personal Representative Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of THERESA FOSTER, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 130918 COA: 262483 Wayne CC: 03-326873-NO KENYA N. SPRATT, Defendant,

and

FAST PETE’S HAULING & DEMOLITION CO., Defendant-Appellee,

and

FIRM BUILT CONSTRUCTION, INC., and DALE HATT, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

s0913 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 20, 2006

Clerk
** **

|   | (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/                W. G. Holliman                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | W.                G. Holliman                       |
|   | Title:                Chief Executive Officer       |
|   | Furniture                Brands International, Inc. |
|   | November                8, 2005                     |