alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GARY PETITTI, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8019

January 16, 1975

530 P.2d 758

*Charles L. Garner*and *George D. Frame,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*15OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Gary Petitti was ordered to stand trial for sale of a controlled substance (diacetylmorphine, commonly known as heroin) to a person under 21 years of age, a felony under NRS 453.321 and NRS 453.161.

In a pretrial habeas challenge he contended there was insufficient evidence adduced at the preliminary examination to establish probable cause that he committed the charged offense, as required by NRS 171.206. The district court denied habeas and Petitti argues the order of the district court' should be reversed. We agree.

Although the information charged that Petitti made a *sale to a person under 21 years of age,*the record of the preliminary examination is barren of any document or testimony that even alludes to the age of the person to whom the sale was purportedly made.1

In cases where age is an issue, competent proof thereof is essential.2 Cf. Gay v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 118, 508 P.2d 1 (1973).

Accordingly, the district court should have granted the habeas petition. The district court’s order denying habeas corpus therefore is reversed, and the court is instructed to grant such writ without prejudice to institution of such charges as the state may determine it can produce evidence to prove.

1

The incumbent Clark County District Attorney did not occupy that office when these proceedings occurred.

2

The penalty appellant faces, if convicted of a sale to a person under the age of 21, is life imprisonment with possibility of parole. NRS 453:321 (2) (a) (2). If convicted of a sale to a person over the age of 21, the penalty range is from 1 to 20 years imprisonment. NRS 453.321 (2) (a)(1).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50039 Summary Calendar

JOHN E GOREE Plaintiff-Appellant

v. TRAVIS COUNTY STATE JAIL; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CV-618
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John E. Goree, Texas prisoner # 1334846, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Goree argues that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s (TDCJ) grievance procedure was not the proper means to address his complaints and that the I-60complaint procedurewas an appropriate alternativewhich satisfied the exhaustion requirement. He also argues that the unsanitary conditions at United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50039

2 the Travis County jail and the absence of durable utensils and drinking cups violated his Eighth Amendment rights. After the district court’sjudgment, the Supreme Court held “that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and that inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). As this action was dismissed prior to service on the defendants, and it is not clear from the complaint that Goree exhausted his administrative remedies, the district court erred by sua sponte dismissing Goree’s suit. See Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court’s judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Jones.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1062

Issued: July 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 5, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a December 22, 2021 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1062.

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 December 22, 2021 decision was June 20, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until July 5, 2022, more than 180 days af ter the

December 22, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1062 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

Id. at § 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. 22-1062, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1062 is dismissed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

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

3 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).
#### Espirito Santo Bank of Florida *v.*David T. Chase

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14803.

*Richard P. Weinstein,*in support of the petition.

*David P. Condon,*in opposition.

Decided July 8, 1993

The defendant’s petition *for*certification *for*appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 12139) is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss this appeal on the ground of: (1) lack of a final judgment; or (2) mootness?”
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21587]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-05-036]


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: International Trade Commission.

Time and Date:  November 2, 2005 at 2 p.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 751-TA-28-29 (Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and 
Prawns from India and Taiwan)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is 
currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' 
opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before November 21, 2005.)
    5. Inv. No. 731-TA-464 (Second Review) (Sparklers from China)--
briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit 
its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of 
Commerce on or before November 15, 2005.)
    6. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: October 21, 2005.
    By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-21587 Filed 10-25-05; 3:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# C_2007200EN.01000601.xml

| 28.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4265 — Philips/Avent)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 200/02)

On 28 August 2006, 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 32006M4265. 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 32006M4265. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation, and ALFRED N. BALLARD, an Individual, Appellants, v. FIRST COMMERCIAL TITLE, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Respondent.

No. 7406

August 1, 1974

524 P.2d 1270

*Morse, Foley and Wadsworth,*of Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Stewart and Horton, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Respondent.

*304OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This case began with a complaint seeking judgment for a deficiency allegedly remaining after foreclosure sale of real property pursuant to the terms of a deed of trust. The district court granted the plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment in the sum of $74,648.95 plus interest, without requiring a hearing on notice to the defendant-appellants, as NRS 40.457(1) expressly requires, and this appeal follows.1

It seems that prior to entry of summary judgment, a purported hearing was held, but that the plaintiff-respondent’s counsel inadvertently omitted to serve the defendant-appellants’ then counsel with notice thereof. Manifestly, the proceedings at that purported hearing were void. Turner v. Saka, 90 Nev. 54, 518 P.2d 608 (1974); Maheu v. District Court, 88 Nev. 26, 493 P.2d 709 (1972); Reno Raceway, Inc. v. Sierra Paving, 87 Nev. 619, 492 P.2d 127 (1971).

Subsequently, on the basis of expert testimony concerning value taken at such “hearing,” counsel for the plaintiff-respondent moved for summary judgment, this time giving notice. In opposition, counsel for the defendant-appellants submitted the affidavit of the individual defendant, clearly stating that a hearing was desired and that opposing expert testimony regarding value was available. However, notwithstanding this, the *305district court entered summary judgment, without permitting a hearing.

• This was error. In our view, a district court may not deny an alleged debtor the right to a full hearing on the issue of value, which NRS 40.457(1) envisions, at least where the alleged debtor has not either expressly or by implication waived his right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses or to present his own.

Reversed and remanded.

1

NRS 40.457(1) provides:

“Before awarding a deficiency judgment under NRS 40.455, the court shall hold a hearing and shall take evidence presented by either party concerning the fair market value of the property sold as of the date of foreclosure sale or trustee’s sale. Notice of such hearing shall be served upon all defendants who have appeared in the action and against whom a deficiency judgment is sought, or upon their attorneys of record, at least 15 days before the date set for hearing.”
# L_2007141EN.01007501.xml

| 2.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 141/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 141/75

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 May 2007

appointing a French member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2007/378/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2006/524/EC, Euratom of 11 July 2006 appointing Czech, German, Estonian, Spanish, French, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourg, Hungarian, Maltese, Austrian, Slovenian and Slovak members of the European Economic and Social Committee (1) for the period from 21 September 2006 to 20 September 2010,

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the French Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas a member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Bruno CLERGEOT,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Philippe MANGIN is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Bruno CLERGEOT for the remainder of his term of office, which ends on 20 September 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 May 2007.

For the Council

The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 207, 28.7.2006, p. 30.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
added by ss. 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.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
          by the Report.





Date:  May 10, 2006                 By: /s/ Albert J. Finch
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
**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 quarterly report of Furniture Brands International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard R. Isaak, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)) and 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | Signature: | /s/ Richard R. Isaak |
|--------|------------|----------------------|

|   |  | Richard R. Isaak |
|--------|--|------------------|
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5489 

To amend section 14102(a)(1)(A) of title 40, United States Code, to provide 

that Bullock County, Alabama, is included in the definition of the Appalachian region for purposes of Appalachian regional development. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2010 

Mr. BRIGHT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend section 14102(a)(1)(A) of title 40, United States 

Code, to provide that Bullock County, Alabama, is included in the definition of the Appalachian region for 

purposes of Appalachian regional development. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE BULLOCK COUNTY, 

4 ALABAMA. 

5 Section 14102(a)(1)(A) of title 40, United States 

6 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘Bullock,’’ after ‘‘Blount,’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
               [CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                                 March 28, 1997

Permian Basin Royalty Trust
500 West 7th Street, Suite 1300
P.O. Box 1317
Fort Worth, Texas  76101

Gentlemen:

        Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the
oil and gas reserve information in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Securities &
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 1996 and in the
Permian Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ending December 31, 1996,
based on reserve reports date March 15, 1997 prepared by Cawley, Gillespie &
Associates, Inc.

                                    Sincerely,

                                   /s/  CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                        CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
#### WILLIAM CODY KELLY, and KYLE F. BROOKS, Trustees, Under Agreement Dated December 12, 1962, and Known as the KELLY TRUST, Appellants, v. STATE OF NEVADA, NEVADA STATE TAX COMMISSION, DOUGLAS COUNTY and HARRY WINKELMAN, Douglas County Assessor, Respondents.

No. 7582

March 12, 1975

532 P.2d 1029

*Daniel R. Walsh,*of Carson City, for Appellants.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, *James D. Salo,*Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, *Howard McKibben,*District Attorney, -and *F. Thomas Eck,*Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County, for Respondents.

*151OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

William Cody Kelly is the owner of property at Gleribrook, Lake Tahoe. A few years ago, he paid $500,000 for the purchase, $325,000 for 44.39 acres and the balance for the improvements. In 1972, he protested the Douglas County tax assessment of $113,400 which was 35 percent of the value as prescribed by statute. NRS 361.225. On his appeal to the State Board of Equalization he contended that the land use restrictions placed on the property by the newly created Tahoe Regional Planning Agency reduced the value of his land to an approximate valuation of $40,000 with assessed valuation at $14,000. The State Board of Equalization reduced the valuation from $324,000 to $215,000 or to what amounted to about 30 percent. Kelly, not satisfied, appealed to the First Judicial District Court where after trial judgment was rendered against Kelly on the grounds that the valuation placed on the property by the Nevada State Board of Equalization was based upon substantial evidence. There was no evidence of fraudulent action or abuse of discretion; the board utilized and applied accepted methods and standards of appraisal practice consistent with law; the valuation was in accordance with a uniform and equal rate of property taxation; and the assessed valuation was not violative of appellants’ rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I, of the Constitution of the State of Nevada.

Appealing to this court Kelly alleges generally that the district court and the State Board of Equalization should be overruled.

It is the taxpayer’s burden to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the valuation established by the Commission is unjust and inequitable (NRS 361.410(2) and NRS 361.430) and that this burden is not met unless the court can find that the Tax Commission applied a fundamentally wrong principle or refused to exercise its best judgment or that the assessment was so excessive as to give rise to an implication of fraud and bad faith. Nevada Tax Commission v. Southwest Gas Corporation, 88 Nev. 309, 497 P.2d 308 (1972).

*152The record shows that the State Board of Equalization looked to all of the factors necessary to give a fair adjustment to Kelly. NRS 361.227(1) sets out those requisites and nothing in the record reflects bad faith on the part of the board.

Affirmed.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oklahoma City, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1131

Issued: September 6, 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 July 22, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a February 10, 2021 nonmerit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1131.

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 February 10, 2021 decision was August 9, 2021. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until July 22, 2022,more than 180 days after the

February 10, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1131 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. 22-1131, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1131 is dismissed.

Issued: September 6, 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).