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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

LOUIS STOKES VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1232

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 3, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an August 2, 2021 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1232.

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 2, 2021 decision was January 29, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until August 3, 2022, more than 180 days after the August 2, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1232 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

 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

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 OWCP within 180 

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

1232, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1232 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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

          <ARTICLE>     5
          <MULTIPLIER>     1,000
                 
          <S>                                <C>
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997 
          <PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1997 
          <PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1997 
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
          <CASH>                                                    17,657
          <SECURITIES>                                                   0
          <RECEIVABLES>                                            329,798
          <ALLOWANCES>                                              17,888
          <INVENTORY>                                              283,273
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         637,785
          <PP&E>                                                   453,285
          <DEPRECIATION>                                           156,726
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,280,231
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    159,042
          <BONDS>                                                  687,800
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
          <PREFERRED>                                                    0
          <COMMON>                                                  52,003
          <OTHER-SE>                                               124,020
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,280,231
          <SALES>                                                1,334,679
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,334,679
          <CGS>                                                    971,091
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                                            971,091
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                                           4,325
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        30,859
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                                           77,307
          <INCOME-TAX>                                              29,119
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       48,188
          <DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
          <CHANGES>                                                      0
          <NET-INCOME>                                              48,188
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0.83
          <EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.80
                  
          
</TABLE>
#### MICHAEL D. WEBB, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7993

July 14, 1975

538 P.2d 164

*Horace Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Deputy State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *Patrick B. Walsh,*Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

By reason of a guilty plea entered July 16, 1974, appellant stands convicted of the crime of illegal use of amphetamine, a felony. He was sentenced to serve 2 years in the Nevada *470State Prison. In this appeal, he argues that we should reverse because (1) a deputy attorney general signed the information upon which he entered his guilty plea, and (2) the attorney general’s office had no authority to proceed with the prosecution of the case, which resulted in a negotiated plea, citing Ryan v. District Court, 88 Nev. 638, 503 P.2d 842 (1972). In Ryan, 88 Nev. at 641, 503 P.2d at 843, this court said, “. . .he [the attorney general] simply is not empowered to initiate a prosecution by information independent of the district attorney.” In the case at bar, the record does not tell us whether the attorney general was acting for the district attorney or independent of him; for appellant, with the approval of his counsel, chose to accept the signature on the information as valid and indeed, through his counsel, negotiated a plea to the charge contained therein. If the information was properly filed, the attorney general was empowered to conduct the prosecution of the case.1 See Junior v. State, 91 Nev. 439, 537 P.2d 1204 (1975).

Additionally, in Webb’s case he entered a plea of guilty, and he may not now be heard to complain of events preceding that plea. As the High Court ruled in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973):

“. . . [A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. . . .” See also Cline v. State, 90 Nev. 17, 518 P.2d 159 (1974), and Bounds v. Warden, 91 Nev. 428, 537 P.2d 475 (1975).

Affirmed.

1

NRS 228.120(3):

> “The attorney general shall have the power:

> “3. To appear in and to take exclusive charge of and to conduct any prosecution in any court of this state for a violation of any law of this state, when in his opinion it is necessary, or when requested to do so by the governor.”
Wm. Queen khuokle, page 2 (0.2477) 

Il.3 bve been unable to find sny legal objeotion,to * person*% i"!':c:' : 

attending s barber sohool and a beauty sohool at the same time, provided 

satisfaotory hours could be arranged whereby there would lm no oonfliot 

in attendance upon said sohools. 

You are therefore respeotfully advised that itis the opinion of 

this deparbnwt that if B person oould complete the required oourses of 

instruotion of both sahools of one thousand hours (1,000) eaohl8thia six 

months, and-s not otherwise disqualified, said person would be eligible 

for both Beauty Operator's and Barber's examinations. 

,,, 

WJF:AW%egw 

~OvEr~JuLY9,194.0 

/s/Glean R. Lewis 

Very truly yours 

AlTORXEYGEXEFWLOFTEXA9 

By /s/W. J. Fanning 

,%I. J. Fanning 

Assistant 

APPROVED 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

BYBWB., 

Choinnrn
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY FRANCIS

No. 7118SC74

(Filed 24 February 1971)

Appeal from *Johnston, Superior Court Judge,*24 August 1970 Criminal Session of Guilford County Superior Court.

The defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with felonious breaking and entering, felonious larceny, and receiving. He entered a plea of guilty to felonious breaking and entering. After questioning defendant extensively relating to the voluntariness of his plea, the court adjudged that the plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made and ordered that it be entered in the record. Judgment was thereupon entered imposing a prison sentence of not less than two nor more than five years. Defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Covington for the State.*

*Wallace C. Harrelson, Public Defender, Eighteenth Judicial District, and B. D. Douglas III, Assistant Public Defender, Eighteenth Judicial District for defendant appellant.*

*543GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s court appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that defendant appealed contrary to advice of counsel, and that counsel has searched the record proper and all of the proceedings and admits that he can find no error prejudicial to the defendant.

We have reviewed the record proper and find no error.

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Parker concur.
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

###### Office of the Secretary

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2005-22659.                

*Date Filed:*                     October 4, 2005.                

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                

*Subject:*                     GVA/SRC/003/05 dated 19 August 2005 and GVA/SRC/005 dated August 28, 2005, i.e. Resolution 801r Intended effective date: 1 November 2005.                

Renee V. Wright,

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 05-21537  Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
# C_2007230EN.01000101.xml

| 2.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4709 — APAX Partners/Telenor Satellite Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 230/01)

On 20 August 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 32007M4709. 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 32007M4709. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, Dallas, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1081

Issued: July 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 14, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a January 12, 2022 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1081.

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 January 12, 2022 decision was July 11, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until July 14, 2022, more than 180 days after the

January 12, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1081 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 

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

to establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by 

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

docketed as No. 22-1081, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1081 is dismissed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE

MEDICAL UNIT, Detroit, MI, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0040

Issued: April 12, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 October 17, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a

September 21, 2022, merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0040.

In a letter dated and received February 23, 2023, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted.2 Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 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).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-0040 is dismissed.

Issued: April 12, 2023

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           12724
<RECEIVABLES>                                   605150
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           290745
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             129853
<PP&E>                                           14500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1076806
<SHORT-TERM>                                     61496
<PAYABLES>                                      214412
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             258295
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               52113
<LONG-TERM>                                      41321
<COMMON>                                           108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      104483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1076806
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                43880
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             59882
<COMMISSIONS>                                   123032
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    29429
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    25844
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               32458
<COMPENSATION>                                  163200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  24098
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
        

</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-1517

___________

Arthur Derby, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

John Lambert; Horn, C/O; * Southern District of Iowa.

Mapes, C/O; Robert Washington; *

John Emmett, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 13, 1996

 Filed: February 23, 1996 ___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

 Arthur Derby, an Iowa inmate, appeals the district court's1

adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. He

contended that while he was in disciplinary segregation, defendant

prison officials violated his First Amendment rights when they

confiscated his rosary because it had an attached plastic crucifix.

The district court stated that Derby's rosary was "essentially the

same" as the rosary found to be a security risk in Mark v. Nix, 983

F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), and concluded that, as in

Mark, defendants' confiscation of a hard plastic crucifix they

reasonably believed to be a security risk did not violate Derby's

rights. 
-2-

We have examined the parties' submissions, including the

rosary and crucifix submitted to the district court by Derby. We

conclude that our decision in Mark controls the outcome of this

case. Because an opinion would thus lack precedential value, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.