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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DALLAS NETWORK 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Dallas, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1372

Issued: May 27, 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 July 2, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from a December 23, 2019 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 20-1372.

The Board has duly considered this 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 December 23, 2019 decision was June 20, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until July 2, 2020, more than 180 days after the December 23, 

2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 20-1372 is untimely filed. 

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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 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. 20-1372 is dismissed.

Issued: May 27, 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).
**Exhibit32**

** **

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**andChief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**18U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to**

### **Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the13 weeks ended April 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Stephen Russo, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Sandra M. Buffa, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/ Stephen Russo       |
|-------------------------|
| Stephen Russo           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 13, 2005            |
|                    |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Sandra M. Buffa     |
| Sandra M. Buffa         |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 13, 2005            |

 

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, exceptto the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

 

A signed original of this statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and will beretained by Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 11.1


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


 
                                               Six Months Ended
                                                  Deceber 31,         
                                              ---------------------
                                               1996           1995
                                              --------      -------   
Basis for computation of earnings per 
 common and common equivalent shares:
   Earnings from continuing operations        $ 81.0        $ 65.8
   Deduct dividends on 4 Percent 
   cumulative preferred stock                    (.2)          (.2)
                                              --------      -------  
   Earnings from continuing operations
    available to common shareholders            80.8          65.6
   Discontinued operations                      (2.1)         30.7
                                              --------      -------

   Available for common shareholders         $  78.7        $ 96.3
                                              ========      =======



Number of shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding     74,173,030    76,098,488
  Shares issuable upon exercise of 
   stock options,net of shares assumed
   to be repurchased                       1,469,465     1,062,758
                                          ----------    ----------
                                          75,642,495    77,161,246
                                          ==========    ==========




Earnings per common share:
  Continuing operations                      $ 1.07       $  .85
  Discontinued operations                      (.03)         .40
                                             -------       ------     
                            

  Net earnings                               $ 1.04       $ 1.25
                                             =======       ======
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5390 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5390

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``David John Donafee 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2010

Mr. Kucinich (for himself, Mr. Driehaus, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Turner, Mr. 
Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Latta, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Austria, Ms. Kaptur, 
  Ms. Fudge, Mr. Tiberi, Ms. Sutton, Mr. LaTourette, Ms. Kilroy, Mr. 
  Boccieri, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. Space) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``David John Donafee 
                        Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DAVID JOHN DONAFEE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``David John Donafee Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``David John 
Donafee Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,017
<PP&E>                                         368,353
<DEPRECIATION>                               (141,127)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,247
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,761
<SALES>                                         67,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,747
<CGS>                                           45,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,154)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,813
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.63


</TABLE>
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 956/2004

of 10 May 2004         

fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1b of Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 for a fortnightly period shall be as set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 May 2004.

It shall apply from 12 to 25 May 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 10 May 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 382, 31.12.1987, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1300/97 (OJ L 177, 5.7.1997, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 72, 18.3.1988, p. 16. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97 (OJ L 289, 22.10.1997, p. 1).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 10 May 2004 fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

----
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00167-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

JAMES VAUGHN IV AND AMBER VAUGHN

From the 369th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV20-0222

ABATEMENT ORDER

On September 10, 2021, Appellee Amber Vaughn (Amber) filed a notice 

designating Amy Ward (Ward) as her attorney in this appeal. Subsequently, on

September 13, 2021, Appellant James Vaughn IV (James) filed a Motion to Disqualify 

Opposing Counsel. James asserts in his motion that in August 2020, he was a prospective 

client of Ward. James states that he consulted with Ward about the underlying case but 

that he declined to enter into a client-lawyer relationship with her. James argues that this 

nevertheless creates a conflict of interest that prevents Ward from representing Amber in 

this appeal.
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 2

“[Texas Committee on Professional Ethics] opinions are concerned with matters of 

attorney discipline and are advisory rather than binding.” Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 

LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp., 327 S.W.3d 859, 866 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 

Nevertheless, opinion 691 of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of 

Texas provides:

A lawyer who consults with a person about the possibility of 

forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter owes that 

person a duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.05 of the Texas Disciplinary 

Rules of Professional Conduct and may not use or reveal information 

communicated by the prospective client except in accordance with that 

Rule.

A lawyer’s consultation with a prospective client may result in a 

disqualifying adverse limitation under Rule 1.06(b)(2). Whether a lawyer’s 

representation of a client reasonably appears to be adversely limited by the 

lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to a former prospective client is ordinarily 

a factual inquiry. As a general rule, a lawyer should not represent a client 

with interests materially adverse to those of a former prospective client in 

the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information 

from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that 

person in the matter.

Tex. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 691 (2021).

We therefore abate this cause to the trial court. The trial court is ORDERED to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing on James’s Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel 

within 21 days of the date of this Order. The trial court is thereafter ORDERED to make 

findings of fact and conclusions of law within 28 days of the date of this Order.

The court reporter is ORDERED to file a supplemental reporter’s record of the 

hearing within 35 days of the date of this Order. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to file 
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 3

a supplemental clerk’s record, containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, within 35 days of the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Order issued and filed September 29, 2021

RWR
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1604-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1604-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 14, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective October 14, 2005.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 05-21502 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### LEPRECHAUN MINING AND CHEMICAL, INC., Appellant, v. DONN E. RONNOW, Respondent.

No. 7662

June 18, 1975

536 P.2d 1027

*Gladstone & Zucker,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Raggio, Walker, Wooster & Pilkington,*and *Johns & Johns,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*404OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In December, 1970, appellant issued a promissory note for $18,200 to respondent for past services. Upon appellant’s later refusal to honor the note, respondent brought suit. Appellant counterclaimed, charging corporate mismanagement and seeking cancellation of the note, an accounting, and return of various corporate funds. The district court entered judgment on the note, and dismissed all counterclaims for failure of proof.

On appeal, appellant’s major contentions are: (1) that because no salary was properly authorized for respondent in the initial instance, the note given in settlement thereof lacked adequate consideration; and (2) that evidence supports appellant’s claims of corporate mismanagement and breach of fiduciary obligation. The record may, however, be read to support the trial court’s determinations. Cf. Leprechaun Mining & Chemical v. Grigor, 91 Nev. 148, 532 P.2d 602 (1975); Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 533 P.2d 473 (1975).
#### SOL FINKELMAN, ALEX BLACK, NATHAN LAUFBAUM, EDWARD M. FIDELMAN, dba SOL FINKELMAN & CO., Appellants, v. CLOVER JEWELERS BOULEVARD, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.

No. 7717

March 12, 1975

532 P.2d 608

*Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy & Jemison, Chartered,*and *Lionel Sawyer Collins & Wartman,*of Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Robert K. Dorsey,*of Las Vegas, and *John R. Lemen,*of Redondo Beach, California, for Respondents.

*147OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In the course of certain extensive and numerous pretrial proceedings respondent moved for and received an order for the production of certain documents. This was only one of many in-court maneuvers in which both parties participated equally. In this one instance, however, the copies of the documents produced were ruled illegible, unintelligible, unidentifiable and so badly reproduced as to be worthless for examination. On that the trial court ordered appellants’ answers stricken and default entered. Subsequently, the court also later refused to set aside the order entering default and after taking evidence entered judgment against the appellants in the amount of $791,665.29. Understandably, they appeal.

The general rule in the imposing of sanctions is that they be applied only in extreme circumstances where willful noncompliance of a court’s order is shown by the record. Societe Internationale, Etc. v. Rogars, 357 U.S. 197 (1958); General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Manufacturing Co., 481 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1162 (1974); Dorsey v. Academy Moving & Storage, Inc., 423 F.2d 858 (5th Cir.1970); Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 376 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1967); Halverson v. Campbell Soup Company, 374 F.2d 810 (7th Cir. 1967); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lewis, 260 So.2d 221 (Fla. 1972); Rio Grande Gas Company v. Gilbert, 491 P.2d 162 (N.M. 1971); Oaks v. Rojcewicz, 409 P.2d 839 (Alaska 1966).

We find nothing in the record that indicates willful disregard of the district court’s order to produce documents. The appellants within the 30 days given to produce the documents partially complied with the court order but apparently due to problems encountered in the microfilming of the documents a *148certain portion of the documents produced were illegible. This, coupled with a very close time factor and present inability to readily produce the documents requested, accounted for the faulty evidence. The trial court gave no opportunity to redo the documents, neither do we perceive any prejudice (at least none was shown) in giving the appellants the chance to do so.

We have here (in contrast to Skeen v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 89 Nev. 301, 511 P.2d 1053 (1973)) an incident where the parties have partially complied with the court’s order and have provided an explanation for their failure to fully comply. This, of course, negates willfulness.

Further purported issues need not be discussed.

The order entering judgment and entry of default are set aside and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.