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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, New York, NY,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0246

Issued: January 12, 2023

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On December 6, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a May 6, 2022 decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0246.

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 May 6, 2022 decision was November 2, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until December 6, 2022, more than 180 days after the

May 6, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0246 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. 23-0246, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0246 is dismissed.

Issued: January 12, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, 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).
# C_2007280EN.01000101.xml

| 23.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4157 — Wendel Investissement/Groupe Materis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 280/01)

On 30 March 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 French 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 32006M4157. 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 32006M4157. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet at December 31, 1999 and the statements of operations for the year then
ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,034,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,960,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                   516,047
<INVENTORY>                                  3,360,468
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,201,769
<PP&E>                                       7,424,612
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,870,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,661,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,110,137
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,980
<COMMON>                                        93,473
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,126,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,661,125
<SALES>                                     25,414,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,725,469
<CGS>                                       13,057,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,057,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,277,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             966,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (557,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   530,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,087,924)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (5,187,221)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,275,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.86)


</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, Clinical Trials of Silymarin for Liver Diseases.                    

*Date:*                         December 1, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                              ( print page 67181)    

*Contact Person:*                         Martina Schmidt, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, Nat'l Center for Complementary and Alt Medicine, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-3456.                         *schmidma@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: October 28, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-21989 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<Page>



                                   EXHIBIT 12

           INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (unaudited)

                                 (in thousands)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      -------------------     -------------------
                                       Dec. 1,   Nov. 25,     Dec. 1,    Nov. 25,
                                         2001       2000        2001        2000
                                      -------    --------    --------    --------
<S>                                   <C>       <C>          <C>        <C>
Earnings (loss) before income taxes    $ (550)   $13,714     $ 7,321     $34,833
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                 7,691      6,797      21,023      19,712
Less: Capitalized interest                (69)       (97)       (323)       (439)
                                       ------    -------     -------     -------
Earnings available to cover
   fixed charges                       $7,072    $20,414     $28,021     $54,106
                                       ======    =======     =======     =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)    .92       3.00        1.33        2.74
                                       ======    =======     =======     =======
</Table>

(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:


<Table>
<Caption>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      ------------------      -------------------
                                       Dec. 1,   Nov. 25,     Dec. 1,    Nov. 25,
                                         2001       2000        2001        2000
                                      --------   -------     -------     -------
<S>                                   <C>        <C>        <C>          <C>
Interest expense, gross                $5,128     $4,552     $13,418     $13,227
Rentals (Interest factor)               2,563      2,245       7,605       6,485
                                      --------   -------     -------     -------
   Total fixed charges                 $7,691     $6,797     $21,023     $19,712
                                      =======    =======     =======     =======
</Table>

(2) For the three months ended December 1, 2001, earnings were inadequate to
    cover fixed charges by $619.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        OF MISSION RESOURCES CORPORATION

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form
10-K/A (the "FORM 10-K") for the year ended December 31, 2004 of Mission
Resources Corporation (the "ISSUER").

I, Richard W. Piacenti, the Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that:

         (i)      the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.


         Dated:   April 11, 2005                     /s/ Richard W. Piacenti
                                                     -----------------------


Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 11th day of April 2005



/s/ Carmen M. Garcia
--------------------

Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas

My commission expires: May 15, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Mission Resources Corporation and will be retained by Mission
Resources Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### LASLEY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7909

August 26, 1975

539 P.2d 461

*534
      *John F. O’Reilly*and *Alan R. Johns,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Lasley Williams, charged with murder, was, by the jury, convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The imposition of prison sentence was suspended and he was granted probation for the period of five years. By this appeal he seeks to void his conviction, urging error with regard to jury instructions and the accepting of further evidence after the state had rested its case. We do not perceive error, and, therefore, affirm.

While working as a clerk in a market, the appellant was struck on the head by one Henderson, who then fled the store. *535The appellant and the store manager, carrying sawed off shotguns, pursued Henderson to a vacant lot across the street from the store. The appellant heard a noise in the bushes behind him, turned and fired his shotgun, fatally wounding Henderson.

1. The court did not give a self-defense instruction. The appellant claims that such an instruction should have been given. Although an accused is entitled to have the jury instructed about his theory of defense if there is evidence to support it, Barger v. State, 81 Nev. 548, 407 P.2d 584 (1965), such an instruction should not be given if there is no supportive evidence. Walker v. State, 85 Nev. 337, 455 P.2d 34 (1969).

The evidence here does not suggest a foundation for a self-defense instruction. The appellant was the aggressor, the pursuer and cannot reasonably be said to have been in fear of immediate death or serious injury. The court properly refused the proffered instruction.

Neither do we perceive error by the trial court in giving the jury an instruction concerning first degree murder. There was some supportive evidence for that instruction. In any event, the jury apparently rejected that evidence since its verdict found voluntary manslaughter only.

Other claimed errors concerning jury instructions not given have been considered and are without substance.

2. The court allowed the state to reopen its case in chief to receive testimony from a police officer concerning a statement made to him by the appellant, the gist of which was that the appellant had fired the fatal shot. The court did not err. In the search for truth, the evidence received was significant for the jurors’ evaluation. Appropriate preliminary steps were observed, in the absence of the jury, to determine the voluntary nature of the statement. The order of trial contemplated by NRS 175.141 (3) (4) was not offended. The court, in allowing the state to reopen, acted well within its discretion.

Affirmed. *
#### STATE v. CAMPBELL

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 652.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 December 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of. substantial constitutional question allowed 7 December 1976.
H. R. 5450 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3894 Crenshaw 

Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Tom Bradley Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TOM BRADLEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Tom Bradley Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Tom Bradley Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# L_2007335EN.01005901.xml

| 20.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 335/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/59

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 13 December 2007

on the continuation in the year 2008 of Community comparative trials and tests on seeds and propagating material of Asparagus officinalis under Council Directive 2002/55/EC started in 2005

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/853/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (1),

Having regard to Commission Decision 2005/5/EC of 27 December 2004 setting out the arrangements for Community comparative trials and tests on seeds and propagating material of certain plants of agricultural and vegetable species and vine under Council Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 68/193/EEC, 92/33/EEC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC, 2002/56/EC and 2002/57/EC for the years 2005 to 2009 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Decision 2005/5/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Council Directive 2002/55/EC as regards Asparagus officinalis from 2005 to 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Decision 2005/5/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Council Directive 2002/55/EC as regards Asparagus officinalis from 2005 to 2009.

| (2) | Trials and tests carried out in 2005, 2006 and 2007 should be continued in 2008, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Trials and tests carried out in 2005, 2006 and 2007 should be continued in 2008,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Community comparative trials and tests which began in 2005 on seeds and propagating material of Asparagus officinalis shall be continued in 2008 in accordance with Decision 2005/5/EC.

Done at Brussels, 13 December 2007.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 33. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2006/124/EC (OJ L 339, 6.12.2006, p. 12).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 2, 5.1.2005, p. 12.

2

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2342

___________ Sebastian Rucci, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Missouri Board for Architects, * Professional Engineers, * [UNPUBLISHED] Professional Land Surveyors and * Landscape Architects, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 4, 2005 Filed: February 9, 2005

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects (the Board) appeals the district court’s denial of its motions (1) to dismiss the action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and (2) to alter or amend the order denying the motion to dismiss. We reverse the denial of both motions.-2- Sebastian Rucci filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Board, seeking declaratory relief and alleging that the Board had violated and continued to violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights by promulgating and enforcing arbitrary and irrational licensing requirements. The district court concluded that the suit fell under the Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908), exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, which applies when a plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief in federal court against state officials. The court concluded that, although Mr. Rucci had not named the Board members, the Board had waived the Ex parte Young requirement that the state officials be named through Mo. Rev. Stat. § 327.031 (2001), which states the Board may “sue and be sued . . . and its members need not be named as parties.” We disagree, because nothing in section 327.031 manifests a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity from suit. Cf. Burk v. Beene , 948 F.2d 489, 493 (8th Cir. 1991) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be “clear and unequivocal”). Thus, we conclude that Mr. Rucci’s suit against the Board was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Mr. Rucci should be given leave to amend his complaint to name the Board members as defendants.

______________________________
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 25, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132754 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132754 

 COA: 266078 

Berrien CC: 2005-402405-FH 

THOMAS RAY SPANGLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. 

s0418 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 25, 2007 

 Clerk
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000694 12-APR-2018 08:17 AM