alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32003D0820

**2003/820/EC: Commission Decision of 20 November 2003 adjusting the weightings applicable from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities serving in third countries***Official Journal L 308 , 25/11/2003 P. 0025 - 0026*

Commission Decision

of 20 November 2003

adjusting the weightings applicable from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities serving in third countries

(2003/820/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2265/2002(2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 1338/2003(3) laid down the weightings to be applied from 1 January 2003 to the remuneration of officials serving in third countries, payable in the currency of their country of employment.

(2) The Commission has made a number of adjustments to these weightings(4) in recent months, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

(3) Some of these weightings should be adjusted with effect from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 given that the statistics available to the Commission show that in certain third countries the variation in the cost of living measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate has exceeded 5 % since weightings were last laid down or adjusted,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

With effect from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials serving in third countries payable in the currency of their country of employment are adjusted as shown in the Annex.

The exchange rates for the calculation of such remuneration shall be those used for implementation of the general budget of the European Communities for the month preceding the dates referred to in the first paragraph.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2003.

For the Commission

Christopher Patten

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2002, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 189, 29.7.2003, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 152, 20.6.2003, p. 84.

ANNEX

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Lake Park, GA, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0309

Issued: January 27, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul H. Felser, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 28, 2021, appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 

21, 2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0309.

In a letter dated and received January 18, 2022, 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. 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

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

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0309 is dismissed.

Issued: January 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEROY PIERCE

No. 744SC146

(Filed 1 May 1974)

Appeal by defendant from *Tillery, Judge,*10 September 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Onslow County. Argued in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1974.

*452Defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with assault with intent to rape.

The State’s evidence tended to show that on 13 July 1973, defendant ordered the prosecuting witness, defendant’s thirteen-year-old daughter, to disrobe in his presence; that defendant attempted to have intercourse with the prosecuting witness who resisted; that defendant slapped the prosecuting witness; and that the prosecuting witness fled when the mother returned to the home.

Defendant testified in his own behalf that he had consumed two beers that evening, but was not intoxicated; that defendant and his wife had been having marital difficulties; and that he did not assault the prosecuting witness, force her to disrobe, or get into bed with her.

From a sentence of not less than twelve years nor more than fifteen years, defendant appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Rich, for the State.*

*William J. Morgan for the defendant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant’s counsel states that he is unable to find arguable prejudicial error, but requests this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error.

We have fully reviewed the record of defendant’s trial, and defendant’s supplemental argument. In our opinion, defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.
* The Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange, United States District Judge

of the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 23 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID FLENKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-3242

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

(D.C. No. 95-2480-KHV)

Stephen J. Dennis, Dennis, Stanton & Redlingshafer, L.L.C., Fairway, Kansas,

for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Rody P. Biggert (Andrew M. Altschul with him on briefs), Seyfarth, Shaw,

Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HENRY , LUCERO , and MILES-LAGRANGE ,

*

 Circuit Judges.

HENRY , Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of an
2

employer, Willamette Industries, Inc. (“Willamette”), in a tort action under

Kansas law for retaliatory discharge. The district court held that plaintiffappellant Mr. Flenker's retaliatory discharge claim was precluded because section

11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”), 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c)

(1994), provided him an adequate alternative remedy. Mr. Flenker appealed.

Because we determined that resolution of the appeal turned on an unsettled

issue of Kansas law, we certified the following question to the Kansas Supreme

Court: “Does the remedy provided by OSHA § 11(c) for employees who allege

that they have been discharged in retaliation for filing complaints under that

statute preclude the filing of a Kansas common law wrongful discharge claim

under Kansas's public policy exception to at-will employment?” The Kansas

Supreme Court, under the facts submitted to it in our certification, answered

“no.” Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc. , No. 80408, 1998 WL 771624, at *5,

*10 (Kan. Nov. 6, 1998) . 

Applying the Kansas Supreme Court's answer here, we hold that OSHA §

11(c) does not preclude Mr. Flenker's Kansas common law wrongful discharge

claim. Thus, with the benefit of this decision previously unavailable to the

district court, we now VACATE the grant of summary judgment to Willamette

and REMAND for further proceedings.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

Officer’s Certification Pursuant to 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 

(18 U.S.C 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation, (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Lorne E. Phillips, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)    The Report is in full compliance with the requirements of Section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)    The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated:February 17, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LONNIE CHARLES BROWN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MATTHEW CATE, Director; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-16971

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00077-GSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted December 9, 2015*** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Lonnie Charles Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

FILED

DEC 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** Brown consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). 

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 
district court’s orders denying his July 14, 2014 and August 14, 2014 motions for

reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison staff used a

security device to sexually assault him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty.,

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown’s July 14,

2014 and August 14, 2014 motions for reconsideration because Brown failed to

demonstrate grounds warranting such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds

for reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Latshaw v.

Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) relief is granted “only where extraordinary circumstances”

are present and the party must “demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

his control that prevented him from proceeding with . . . the action in a proper

fashion” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted, ellipsis in original)). 

 We lack jurisdiction to address Brown’s challenges to the district court’s

orders denying his motion to appoint counsel and dismissing his complaint,

because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal of the underlying judgment. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of

final judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (the time to file an appeal runs from

2 14-16971
the entry of the order disposing of a post-judgment tolling motion). 

We reject Brown’s contention that he was prejudiced by the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno.

Brown’s motion for relief, filed on October 27, 2015, is denied because he

provides no legal basis for the requested relief. 

AFFIRMED.

3 14-16971
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ, also known as Arthur Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50941.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Arturo Martinez-Ramirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0187 & 22-1228

Issued: July 18, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL IN DOCKET NO. 23-0187 AND 

DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN 

DOCKET NO. 22-1228

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On November 22, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported September 29, 2022 

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

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-0187.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 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.2 On September 29, 

2022 the Board issued an order dismissing appellant’s appeal in Docket No. 22-1228.3 As there 

1

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

2

Id. at 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 OWCP.”

3 Order Dismissing Appeal, Docket No. 22-1228 (issued September 29, 2022).
2

is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise

jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0187 must be dismissed.4

To the extent that appellant’s November 22, 2022 appeal may be construed as a petition 

for reconsideration of the Board’s September 29, 2022 order in Docket No. 22-1228, the Board 

notes that its order became final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance. 5 As 

appellant did not file her disagreement with the Board’s September 29, 2022 order until 

November 22, 2022, this submission may not be deemed as a timely petition for reconsideration 

as it was filed in excess of 30 days from the date of issuance. 6 Thus, the petition for reconsideration 

of the September 29, 2022 Board order must be dismissed as untimely filed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0187 is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the petition for reconsideration in Docket No. 22-

1228 is dismissed as untimely filed.

Issued: July 18, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).

5

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d);see Order Dismissing Appeal, R.S., Docket Nos. 20-1307 and 22-0331 (issued August 24, 

2022); R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019).

6

See id. at § 501.7(a).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,893
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,040
<PP&E>                                         113,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,806
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,194
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,888
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,957
<SALES>                                         62,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,863
<CGS>                                           44,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,972
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46


</TABLE>
STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

RANDAL DEAN RATLEDGE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5718

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James H. Daniel, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, and 

Brittany Rose Mauerberger, Assistant State Attorney, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Wm. J. Sheppard, Elizabeth L. White, Matthew R. Kachergus, Bryan E. DeMaggio 

of Sheppard, White, Kachergus & Demaggio, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5128 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5128

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States Department of the Interior Building in 
Washington, District of Columbia, as the ``Stewart Lee Udall Department 
                      of the Interior Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Department of the Interior Building located at 
1849 C Street, Northwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Stewart Lee Udall Department of the 
Interior Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, record, or other 
paper of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Stewart Lee Udall 
Department of the Interior Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 12





JOSTENS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)





Nine months ended

Years endedDollars in thousands

September 28, 2002

September 29, 2001

December 29, 2001

December 30, 2000


January 1, 2000

January 2, 1999

January 3, 1998EarningsIncome (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes

$
43,853

$
27,544

$
26,540

$
(10,468
)

$
43,999

$
35,952

$
52,379Interest expense(excluding capitalized interest)


50,830


60,570


79,035


60,252



7,486


7,026


6,866Portion of rent expense under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor


1,053


943


1,164


1,121



1,483


1,233


2,133Total earnings

$
95,736

$
89,057

$
106,739

$
50,905


$
52,968

$
44,211

$
61,378Fixed chargesInterest expense(including capitalized interest)

$
50,830

$
60,570

$
79,035

$
60,252


$
7,887

$
7,729

$
6,866Portion of rent expense under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor


1,053


943


1,164


1,121



1,483


1,233


2,133Total fixed charges

$
51,883

$
61,513

$
80,199

$
61,373


$
9,370

$
8,962

$
8,999Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


1.8


1.4


1.3



0.8
1


5.7


4.9


6.8





1 For the year ended December 30, 2000, earnings did not cover fixed charges by $10.5 million.