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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Houston, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0664

Issued: August 8, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On April 4, 2023 appellant sought an appeal from a purported February 6, 2023 final 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0664.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP 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 her appeal.2 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 

over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction. The February 6, 2023 preliminary 

overpayment determination that appellant was overpaid compensation benefits for the period 

December 17, 2018 through October 30, 2020 in the amount of $4,082.08 due to receipt of 

compensation at the augmented rate, to which she was not entitled, is not a final decision. Section 

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) 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

501.2 (c)(2) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “There will be no appeal with respect to 

any interlocutory matter decided (or not decided) by OWCP during the pendency of a case.”

3

 As 

OWCP had not issued a final overpayment decision, the case record as transmitted to the Board 

does not contain a final adverse decision by OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of 

docketing of the current appeal. As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which 

the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docke ted as

Docket No. 23-0664 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 23-0664 is 

dismissed.

Issued: August 8, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, 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

Id. at § 501.2(c)(2).

4 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).
** **

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Denise L. Ramos                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Denise                L. Ramos**                      |
|   | **Title:                Chief Financial Officer**       |
|   | **Furniture                Brands International, Inc.** |
|   | November                8, 2005                         |
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

BRUCE W. CARTER VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Miami, FL, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0055

Issued: September 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 18, 2021, appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 22, 

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

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0055.

In a letter dated June 13, 2022 and received June 21, 2022, counsel requested that the 

appeal be withdrawn.

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

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.2 Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim f or a f ee f or 

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 also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

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

2 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

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

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0055 is dismissed.

Issued: September 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### Amy SHATSWELL, Plaintiff, v. Craig SHATSWELL, Defendant.

No. 91-4029-R.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Feb. 21, 1991.

*663MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROGERS, District Judge.

This case is now before the court upon the petition of Ms. Amy Shatswell for a stay order pursuant to the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act. Specifically, petitioner is asking this court to issue an order staying the enforcement of a child custody order issued by the Shawnee County District Court pending Ms. Shatswell’s armed service in Saudi Arabia. A stay was earlier requested of the Shawnee County District Court. But, the stay was denied in a letter opinion.

Upon the court’s own motion, this case shall be dismissed. The provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act may be applied by federal and state courts. 50 U.S.C.App. § 512(1). But, the Act does not empower this court to collaterally review, vacate or impede the decisions of a state court. See *Scheidegg v. Department of Air Force,*715 F.Supp. 11, 13-14 (D.N.H.1989); *Sarfaty v. Sarfaty,*534 F.Supp. 701, 704 n. 4 (E.D.Pa.1982); *Davidson v. General Finance Corp.,*295 F.Supp. 878, 882 (N.D.Ga.1968); *Runge v. Fleming,*181 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Iowa 1960); *Radding v. Ninth Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n,*55 F.Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y.1944). Judgments made in violation of the Act are subject to attack only in the courts which rendered the judgments. See 50 U.S.C.App. § 520(4).

We also note that under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, a federal court may not stay a state court proceeding “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” We do not believe the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act “expressly” authorizes this court to issue a stay against a state court proceeding. Nor are the other conditions for a stay met under the allegations of petitioner.

Ms. Shatswell should seek review of the state district court’s decision in the state court system. This case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA 

MEDICAL CENTER, Wilmington, DE, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0074

Issued: January 31, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On October 21, 2021 the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 

22-0074 to a purported appeal from a September 15, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP).

The Board has duly considered this matter and finds that the appeal is invalid. Section 

501.3(a) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides that a “person adversely affected by a final 

decision of the Director [of OWCP] or his or her authorized Representative, may file an appeal of 

such decision by the Board.”

1

 The AB-1 form received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards was 

filed by “Sara L. @ First State Ortho”. Appellant did not sign the appeal form, nor did she 

authorize “Sara L.” to represent her. The Board, therefore, concludes that neither a “person 

adversely affected” by a final OWCP decision, nor an “authorized representative,” has filed an 

appeal to the Board. As such, there is no valid appeal before the Board.

The Board further finds that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to review final adverse 

decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.2 This jurisdiction 

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(a)

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a). 
2

encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date of the 

appeal.3 The September 15, 2020 decision is a notice of acceptance of the claim, not a final adverse 

decision of OWCP. There is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board 

may properly exercise jurisdiction.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the purported appeal docketed as No. 22-0074 is 

dismissed.

Issued: January 31, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 

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).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61831-61832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21483]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

[CIS No. 2352-05]
RIN 1615-ZA23


Adjustment of the Immigration Benefit Application Fee Schedule; 
Correction

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a 
notice in the Federal Register on September 26, 2005 at 70 FR 56182 to 
increase the fees for immigration benefit applications and petitions to 
account for cost increases due to inflation. In the fee table of the 
September 26, 2005 notice, USCIS added a footnote ``6'' next to the new 
fee for the Form N-600K. Footnote ``6'' shows an increase in fee from 
$200 to $215 for an application filed on behalf of an adopted child (as 
compared to the base fee increase from $240 to $255). The placement of 
this footnote and its lack of specificity regarding which 
``application'' it was meant to

[[Page 61832]]

refer to have created some ambiguity regarding the adopted child fee 
for the Form N-600, which similarly was adjusted from $200 to $215 (as 
compared to the new base fee of $255 referenced in the Notice). 
Accordingly, this notice clarifies the prior notice by amending 
footnote ``6'' to state specifically that it refers to both the Form N-
600 and the Form N-600K.

DATES: This correction is effective October 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Schlesinger, Director, Office of 
Budget, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Ave., NW., Suite 4052, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-1930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

    As published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 
56182), the Notice contains an error that is in need of correction for 
the purpose of clarifying the Notice.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56182), 
of the Notice that was the subject of FR Doc. 05-19226 is corrected as 
follows:
    1. On page 56184, immediately after the table, amend footnote ``6'' 
by striking ``an application'' and inserting ``a Form N-600 or Form N-
600K''.

    Dated: October 24, 2005.
Stephen Tarragon,
Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division.
[FR Doc. 05-21483 Filed 10-24-05; 1:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            RULE 13A-14(1) OR RULE 15D-14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Petrosearch Energy Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Dole, Chief Executive officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
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 operation of
          the company.


Date: June 6, 2006


By:  /s/Richard Dole
     ----------------
     Richard Dole
     Chief Executive Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

White River Junction, VT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1281

Issued: April 5, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 24, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a purported August 18, 2021 decision 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 21-1281.

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 Although the case record does contain a letter from OWCP dated 

August 18, 2021, it is informational in nature. Thus, it does not constitute a final adverse OWCP 

decision.

3

 As there is no final adverse OWCP decision over which the Board may properly 

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) 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.”

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). Id. at §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3(a).
2

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 21-1281 must 

be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1281 is dismissed.4

Issued: April 5, 2022

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

4 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).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

Th e H o n o r ab l e Re b e c c aR. Pa l l me y e r , D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orN orthe rn I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. P E DR O J OS E GA R C I A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10599 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 -cr-0 0 3 5 3 -R L H -R JJ1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R oge rL . H unt , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r6, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T R O T T and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and P A L L M E Y E R , D i stri ctJudg e. *** P e dr o G a r c i aappe a l s the de ni a l of hi s s uppr e s s i on of

e vi de nc e m ot i on 

# FI LED DE C 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

fol l ow i ng w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed by a j ury of ( 1) bei ng a f el on i n p osse ss i on of a fi re arm and (2) po ss es si on of a c on trol l ed subst ance . D uri ng a l aw ful tra ff

i c s t op , O ff

i ce r S utt on saw fr om ou t si de G ar ci a’ s c ara c le a rb a g g yc o n ta in in g ac ry s ta llin e s u b s ta n c e r e s tin g o n th e c a r ’s c e n te rc o n s o le . G a r c i adoe s notdi s put e tha tthe ba ggy w a s i n O f f i c e rS utt on’ s pl a i n vi e w . T he c ourtc onc l ude d tha tO f f i c e rS utt on’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe ba ggy c ont a i ne d a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le f o rs o m e o n e w ith h is e x p e r ie n c e a n d tr a in in g . T he r e c or d a m pl ys upport s the c ourt ’ s c onc l us i on, a l l ow i ng f oras e a r c h of G a r c i a ’ s c a rpur s uantt o the “ aut om obi l e e xc e pt i on. ” C a l i f orni av. C a rne y , 471 U . S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 1 (1 9 8 5 ); C arro l l v . U n i t ed S t at es, 2 6 7 U . S . 1 3 2 (1 9 2 5 ). T h u s, G a r c i a ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s w a s pr ope r l yde ni e d. T h e c o u rt’s cr ed ib il ity f in d in g s o n o th erissu es ar e n o t relev an t t o th e c o u rt’s fi nd i ng s on thi s i ss ue. AF F I R ME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JOSTENS,
INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,283
<INVENTORY>                                     65,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,747
<PP&E>                                         283,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                 205,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,970
<BONDS>                                        700,533
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           46,501
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,015
<OTHER-SE>                                   (580,169)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,292
<SALES>                                        594,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               594,584
<CGS>                                          265,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               294,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,885
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,725)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,725)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)


</TABLE>