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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Bridgeton, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0021

Issued: October 27, 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 October 7, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a purported March 31, 2022 decision

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0021.

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 (FECA).

1

 This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 

180 days of the date appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does 

not contain a March 31, 2022 final adverse decision of OWCP as this is a decision accepting 

appellant’s claim.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP dated March 31, 2022 

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 f rom the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3 The Board notes that appellant has an appeal pending from an April 26, 2022 final adverse decision of OWCP 

under Docket No. 23-0048.
2

over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 23-0021 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0021 is dismissed.

Issued: October 27, 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

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).
#### STATE v. HARRY EDWARD PINDELL.

(Filed 20 April, 1966.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bailey, J.,*December Criminal Session 1965 of Waee.

The defendant, Harry Edward Pindell, along with three other persons, was charged in a bill of indictment with the felonious breaking and entering of the Raleigh Loan Office on 5 August 1965, which business establishment is owned by Isadore Golden. In a second count in the bill of indictment the defendant and others were charged with the larceny of certain itemized articles of merchandise owned by Isadore Golden, trading as Raleigh Loan Office, of the value of $2,000.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Prom the judg*131ments imposed on the respective counts the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Moody for the State.*

*Earle R. Purser for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit interposed at the close of the State’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. The State’s evidence was sufficient to require the submission of the charges of breaking and entering and larceny to the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.

The remaining assignments of error have been carefully examined and in our opinion they present no prejudicial error. In the trial below we find

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.
# C_2007099EN.01000301.xml

| 3.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4521 — LGI/Telenet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 99/05)

On 26 February 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 32007M4521. 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 32007M4521. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# L_2007317EN.01007501.xml

| 5.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 317/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 317/75

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 29 November 2007

on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

(2007/787/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the 2005 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (2), was signed on behalf of the Community and its Member States at Brussels on 31 October 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (2), was signed on behalf of the Community and its Member States at Brussels on 31 October 2007.

| (2) | The Protocol should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Protocol should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union is hereby approved on behalf of the Community and its Member States.

The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision (3).

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2007.

For the Council

The President

M. LINO

---

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 21.6.2000, p. 3.

2

(3)  See page 65 of this Official Journal.

3

---
Exhibit 10.20

      

    

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    NBT Bancorp Inc.

    

    

    

    

    This Acknowledgement (the “Acknowledgement”) is entered into on May 4, 2021, by and between NBT Bancorp Inc. (the “Company”) and Annette Burns (the “Employee”).

    I, Annette Burns, understand that, pursuant to this Acknowledgment, I am eligible to participate in the NBT Bancorp Inc. Enhanced Separation Pay Plan (the “Plan”) and receive a severance payment and
      benefits based on my Severance Level.  My Severance Level has increased from Band 3 to Band 2, as determined by the Company, in its sole discretion, and changed only in accordance with the terms of the Plan.  This acknowledgement supersedes the
      document dated April 22, 2015. I further acknowledge that a copy of the Plan has been provided to me and I accept the terms of the Plan.

    No alteration or other modification of this Acknowledgement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties.  If any provision of this Acknowledgement is
      determined to be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, this determination will not affect any other provision of this Acknowledgement and the provision in question shall be modified by the court so as to be rendered enforceable.

    This Acknowledgement is made and entered into in the State of New York and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced, and governed under New York law, without regard to any
      principles of conflicts of law.  The parties hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any federal or state court for New York for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Acknowledgement, and each party hereby irrevocably
      agrees that all claims in respect of such dispute or any suit, action or proceeding related thereto may be heard and determined in such courts.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Acknowledgement, effective as of the date first above written.

    

    

    Employee:

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Annette Burns

    Annette Burns
ex_320104.htm


Exhibit 10.11


 


FRESHPET, INC. 


 


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION SUMMARY 


 


QUARTERLY FEES 


 


Each non-employee director will receive annual fees consisting of the following:


 


	 	
			(1)

				
			$50,000 (or $80,000 for the Chair of the Board) retainer paid in cash payable in quarterly installments; and

			



 


	 	
			(2)

				
			$69,990 (or $89,993 for the Chair of the Board) award of time-vesting RSUs, which vest on the first anniversary of the grant date;

			



 


QUARTERLY STIPENDS 


 


Each Committee Chair will also receive quarterly stipends as follows:


 


	
			Non-Employee Director Stipends

				
			Quarterly

				
			Annualized

			
	
			Audit Committee Chair

				
			$3,750

				
			$15,000

			
	
			Compensation Committee Chair

				
			$1,875

				
			$7,500

			
	
			Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair

				
			$1,875

				
			$7,500

			



 


VALUATION OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS


 


Annual Fees: The number of RSUs to be awarded annually to a director is determined by dividing the dollar value of RSUs to be granted to the director by the fair market value (the closing price) of our common stock on the date the grant date of the RSUs.


 


Dividends: Dividends (or dividend equivalents) shall not be payable with respect to any shares of stock underlying an award until such award has vested, except that a grantee of an award may be provided with the right to the accrual of dividends (or dividend equivalents) on the unvested portion of an award that may be payable upon the vesting of such portion of the award.
# C_2007157EN.01000101.xml

| 10.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

COMMISSION OPINION

of 9 July 2007

concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the NCS radioactive waste storage facility at the Hanau site in Germany, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(only the German text is authentic)

(2007/C 157/01)

On 18 October 2006, the European Commission received from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the NCS facility at the site of Hanau.

On the basis of these data and the additional information requested by the Commission on 7 December 2006 and provided by the German Government on 31 January 2007, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case France, is approximately 150 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case France, is approximately 150 km.

| 2. | During normal operation, discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

During normal operation, discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States.

| 3. | Solid radioactive waste from the production operations will be eliminated at an approved site. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Solid radioactive waste from the production operations will be eliminated at an approved site.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in other Member States would not be liable to affect the health of the population. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in other Member States would not be liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form from the operation of the NCS facility at the Hanau site in the Federal Republic of Germany, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

---
#### JENKINS v. BROTHERS

No. 7 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 303.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 January 1969.
# C_2008031EN.01000201.xml

| 5.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4701 — Generali/PPF Insurance Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 31/03)

On 3 December 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 32007M4701. 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 32007M4701. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

J.A.D., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-58

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 11, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Pinellas County; James V. Pierce,

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public 

Defender, and Clark E. Green, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow,

for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Ross P. Palacios, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 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 5,   2012 | By     | /s/   Abu M. Arif         |
|------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                                     |   | Abu   M. Arif             |
|                                     |   | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                                     |   |                      |
|                                     |   |                      |
| Date:  November 5,   2012 | By     | /s/   Ross P. Palacios    |
|                                     |   | Ross   P. Palacios        |
|                                     |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

E-4

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION AUTHORITY, 

Bridgeport, WV, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0940

Issued: July 26, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On June 29, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a September 30, 2022 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0940.

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 September 30, 2022 decision was March 29, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until June 29, 2023, more than 180 days after the

September 30, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0940 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) 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

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained his 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. 23-0940, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0940 is dismissed.

Issued: July 26, 2023

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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the nine month period ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         142,049
<SECURITIES>                                   367,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  385,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               427,349
<PP&E>                                         142,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 127,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,361,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,565,106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,721
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,425,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,361,330
<SALES>                                        749,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               749,337
<CGS>                                          481,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,377,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,906)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,109,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,109,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,114,103)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1
 
        SECTION VIII
 Benefit Freeze
 8.1
 8.2




---



##### 



(a)
    
    such Participants years of Service earned after December 31, 2005, up to
a maximum of five such years of Service and subject to any limit set forth
in the Basic Plan, shall be taken into account; and(b)
    
    such retirement, death or disability benefits shall be based on
such
Participants average compensation or other factors taken into account
under the Basic Plan as of the date such Participant ceases to be credited
with Service under Section 8.2(a) of this Plan. Notwithstanding anything
herein or the Basic Plan to the contrary, any amounts deferred from
taxable income by any such Participant under the Furniture Brands
International, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan after December 31, 2005
shall be taken into account in determining such Participants retirement,
death or disability benefits pursuant to this Section 8.2 to the extent such
amounts would have been taken into account as compensation under the
Basic Plan absent such deferral and the limitations of Code Section
401(a)(17).
 15th December
 FURNITURE BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.By:
    /s/ Lynn ChipperfieldTitle:   SVP  CAO