alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007119EN.01002901.xml

| 9.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 119/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 119/29

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 16 April 2007

establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the Community within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992

(2007/316/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

The International Sugar Agreement 1992 was concluded by the Community by Decision 92/580/EEC (1) and entered into force on 1 January 1993 for a period of three years until 31 December 1995. Since then, it has been regularly extended for further periods of two years. The Agreement was last extended by decision of the International Sugar Council in May 2005 and remains in force until 31 December 2007. A further extension is in the interest of the Community. The Commission, which represents the Community in the International Sugar Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Community’s position within the International Sugar Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 for a further period of up to two years.

The Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the International Sugar Council.

Done at Luxembourg, 16 April 2007.

For the Council

The President

H. SEEHOFER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 379, 23.12.1992, p. 15.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000051387
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         251,391
<SECURITIES>                                31,070,060
<RECEIVABLES>                                  410,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         109,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,930,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          292,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,311,581
<SALES>                                        721,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               721,410
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  602,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,620
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
#### Peter W. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 05-3125.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 31, 2005.

*ORDER*

Peter W. Jackson submits a letter “requesting issues be remanded back to the full Board for their final order as issues and resolutions are still premature,” which the court treats as a motion to voluntarily dismiss his petition for review.

It appears that Jackson timely petitioned the Merit Systems Protection Board for review of the administrative judge’s initial decision and also sought review by this court. Under these circumstances, the petition for review by this court is dismissed.

*1008Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
# C_2007302EN.01000201.xml

| 14.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4590 — REWE/Delvita)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 302/03)

On 25 April 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 32007M4590. 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 32007M4590. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.G., Appellant

and

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT, Drakesboro, KY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0657

Issued: April 19, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 22, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported December 8, 2021 

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

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0657.

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

review of final adverse OWCP decisions 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 this appeal.2 The case record contains correspondence dated December 8, 2021, 

wherein OWCP provided a copy of a second opinion report and afforded appellant and his treating 

physician 30 days to review and comment. This correspondence, however, does not constitute a 

final adverse OWCP decision from which appellant may properly appeal as it is informational in 

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 the OWCP.”
2

nature.3 As there is no final adverse OWCP decision over which the Board may properly exercise 

jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 22-0657 must be 

dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0657 is dismissed. 

Issued: April 19, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 See Order Dismissing Appeal, K.S., Docket No. 20-1401 (issued March 17, 2021); Order Dismissing Appeal, 

S.U., Docket No. 20-0636 (issued December 3, 2020) (correspondence that is purely informational in nature does not 

constitute a final adverse decision of OWCP from which appellant may properly appeal). 

4 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).
#### LEONARDO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR CLARK COUNTY, and MICHAEL J. WENDELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents.

No. 17482

December 15, 1986

729 P.2d 487

*Leonardo Martinez,*Las Vegas, In Proper Person.

*Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, Clark County; *Crowell, Crowell, Crowell & Susich,*and *Daniel L. O’Brien,*Carson City; *Jeffrey Eskin,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*562OPINION

*Per Curiam:**1*

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges an order of the district court denying petitioner’s motion for leave to be represented by an agent other than counsel. Petitioner contends that NRS 612.705(2) gives him an absolute right to be represented by a non-attorney agent in a proceeding before a court of law. We disagree.

Petitioner’s employment was terminated and he sought unemployment benefits through the usual administrative processes. Having failed to prevail before the Employment Security Department, petitioner sought judicial review. Petitioner moved the district court for leave to proceed in proper person and the district court granted the motion. Petitioner then moved the district court for leave to be represented by an agent other than counsel pursuant to NRS 612.705(2). The district court initially granted this motion. However, on motion of the Employment Security Department, the district court vacated its order allowing petitioner to be represented by a non-attorney agent, and issued an order denying petitioner’s motion to be represented by an agent other than counsel. Petitioner now asks this court to order the district court to allow him to be represented by a non-attorney agent.

NRS 612.705(2) (emphasis added) provides:

> Any individual claiming benefits in any proceeding before the executive director or the board of review, or his or its representatives, *or a court, may be represented by counsel or other duly authorized agent,*but no such counsel or agents shall either charge or receive for such services more than an amount approved by the board of review.

This statute does not prescribe who may represent a client; it merely provides that any “duly authorized agent” may collect a fee only as allowed by the board of review. In a court of law, only a licensed attorney may be duly authorized to represent a client. *See*SCR 77; NRS 7.285. Therefore, petitioner has no right to be represented by an agent other than counsel in a court of law. We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions, and we conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, we conclude that our *563intervention at this time by way of extraordinary writ is not warranted, and we deny the petition. *See*NRAP 21(b).2

1

This petition was originally disposed of in an unpublished order. Upon motion of the respondents, we have determined that our decision should be issued in a published opinion. Accordingly, we hereby issue this opinion in place of our Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed September 2, 1986.

2

In light of this disposition, we deny as moot petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in proper person.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-128828, 333-46718,
333-54538, 333-113478, 333-118677, 333-96193, 333-156567, and 333-150353 on Form S-3 and
Nos. 333-85330, 333-91554, 333-105292, 333-88527, 333-88529 and 333-56468 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 2,
2009, relating to the financial statements of East West Bancorp, Inc. and the effectiveness of East West Bancorp, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of East West Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

Los
Angeles, California
March 2, 2009

---



QuickLinks
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Presidential Documents 62227 

Presidential Determination No. 2006–02 of October 16, 2005 

Provision of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Brazil 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Defense 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 

§ 2291–4), I hereby certify, with respect to Brazil, that (1) interdiction 

of aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that country’s airspace is necessary because of the extraordinary 

threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to the national security of that country; 

and (2) that country has appropriate procedures in place to protect against 

innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in connection with 

such interdiction, which shall at a minimum include effective means to 

identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force is directed against 

the aircraft. 

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register 

W 

and to notify Congress of this determination. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, October 16, 2005. 

[FR Doc. 05–21615 

Filed 10–27–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      218,190
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,628
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          27,579
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        38,450
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  11,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,033
<COMMON>                                         6,102
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       61,966
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             25,039
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  93,107
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            91,321
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              38,250
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,515
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  68,640
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  298,033
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      225,029
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             4,540
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     204,139
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     208,679
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         16,350
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,123
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  17,473
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,700
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,773
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        348
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,425
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         6,492
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        6,827
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          26,864
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00114-CV

Heldy Finch, Appellant

v.

James Arthur Finch, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 395TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 01-324-F395, HONORABLE MICHAEL JERGINS, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The brief of appellant Heldy Finch was due May 8, 2003. By letter of May 22, 2003,

appellant was notified that her brief was overdue and instructed to tender a brief with the explanation

required by Rule 38 or her appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.8(a)(1) (if appellant fails timely to file brief, appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution

unless appellantreasonablyexplainsfailure and appellee notsignificantlyinjured). To date, we have

received no response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex.R. App.

P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b) (dismissal for want of prosecution).

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 14, 2003
2
# L_2007071EN.01001801.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 71/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 71/18

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 of 19 December 2006 amending Regulations (EEC) No 404/93, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 247/2006 as regards the banana sector

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 384 of 29 December 2006
  )

On page 17, in Article 3 (Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 247/2006), in point 2 (new Article 24a):

for:

‘1.   By 15 March 2007, Member States shall submit to the Commission the draft amendments to their overall programme to reflect the changes introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2011/2006 (*1).

read:

‘1.   By 15 March 2007, Member States shall submit to the Commission the draft amendments to their overall programme to reflect the changes introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 (*2).

---

(*1)  See page 1 of this Official Journal.’

*1

(*2)  
  OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 13.’

*2

---
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as


Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.











Date:
November 29, 2010By:
/s/ Dennis P. GaugerDennis P. GaugerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)








---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD POST 

OFFICE, Springfield, OH, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0762

Issued: July 27, 2021

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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 22, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 24, 2021

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0762.

In a letter dated and received June 16, 2021, 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. 21-0762 is dismissed.

Issued: July 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
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, BUREAU OF 

NAVAL PERSONNEL, Millington, TN,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0059

Issued: November 21, 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 October 19, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a January 23, 2020 nonmerit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0059.

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 23, 2020 decision was July 21, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until October 19, 2022, more than 180 days after the

January 23, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0059 is 

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).
2

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 the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0059, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0059 is dismissed.

Issued: November 21, 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).