alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROBERT C. ROGGEN, Appellant, v. ROBERTA ROGGEN, Respondent.

No. 11463

August 18, 1980

615 P.2d 250

*688*Wiener, Goldwater & Waldman,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Bell, Leavitt & Green,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

When the parties to this divorce action moved to Nevada, they purchased a condominium in Mrs. Roggen’s name. Thereafter, Mrs. Roggen filed for divorce, claiming the Regency Towers condominium as her sole and separate property, and seeking distribution of the parties’ community property.

Mr. Roggen takes this appeal from provisions of the divorce decree confirming the condominium as Mrs. Roggen’s sole and separate property and valuing the parties’ businesses at $334,641. He seeks a new trial to establish the value of the businesses, arguing that trial court relied upon stale financial and business records and failed to consider declining market conditions.

*689Clear and certain proof is required to rebut the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property. Burdick v. Pope, 90 Nev. 28, 518 P.2d 146 (1974); Zahringer v. Zahringer, 76 Nev. 21, 348 P.2d 161 (1960); Carlson v. McCall, 70 Nev. 437, 271 P.2d 1002 (1954); Petition of Fuller, 63 Nev. 26, 159 P.2d 579 (1945). The record reflects that Mr. Roggen told his housekeeper and a former business associate that he had made a gift of the condominium to Mrs. Roggen. Although Mr. Roggen denied making statements attributed to him, Mrs. Roggen’s claims are supported by Mr. Roggen’s handwritten memorandum to her and the fact that title was taken in her name only. Whether Mrs. Roggen produced clear and convincing evidence that the condominium was a gift sufficient to overcome the presumption was for the trial court, Zahringer v. Zahringer, cited above, and there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision. Kelly v. Kelly, 86 Nev. 301, 468 P.2d 359 (1970). We affirm that portion of the judgment.

2. We believe that appellant’s arguments as to valuation of the businesses are belated. Appellant could have presented at trial the evidence he now seeks to bring before the court. *Cf.*Burr v. Burr, 96 Nev. 480, 611 P.2d 623 (1980). There is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s valuation. It is not the duty of a reviewing court to instruct the trier of facts as to which witnesses, and what portions of their testimony, are to be believed. Carlson v. McCall, cited above.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3296

STEVEN G. COKER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Boar in

DA0752070282-C-1.

ON MOTION

Before PROST, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Department of Commerce moves without opposition for a 33-day extension

of time, until February 17, 2009, to file its brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. No further extensions should be anticipated.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

FEB 0 2 2009

Motiroitu

CLERK

Date

cc:	Peter H. Noone, Esq.

Robert E. Chandler, Esq.

s17
CERTIFICATE 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 Roanoke Technology Corp. (the
"Company") on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David Jeffrey Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respect, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Jeffrey Sternberg
----------------------------------
Name:   Jeffrey Sternberg
Title:  Chief Executive Officer and
        Chief Financial Officer

Date:   April 6, 2005
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30684

RICKEY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary of Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendant - Appellant - Cross-Appellee,

EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Governor; RICHARD A. WALL, Warden Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

(94-CV-1779)

May 28, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The parties agree that the judgment entered below should

properly read against Richard Wall. The State of Louisiana is the

party at interest since both Richard Wall and Richard Stalder are

before us in the ir official capacities. We grant the request to2

correct the clerical mistake.

We are persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to support

the jury verdict and that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in its order of relief.

AFFIRMED.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1318

Issued: September 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 1, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a June 1, 2021 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1318.

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 June 1, 2021 decision was November 28, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until September 1, 2022, more than 180 days after the

June 1, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1318 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. 22-1318, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1318 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

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).
#### HERBERT L. DAVIS v. JOSEPH MARSHALL HALL

No. 713SC224

(Filed 26 May 1971)

Appeal by defendant from *Blount, Judge,*at the 23 November 1970 Session of Carteret Superior Court.

This is a civil action in which plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him when the rear end of the automobile he was operating was struck by an automobile operated by defendant. At trial, by stipulation of the parties, the issue of negligence was answered in favor of plaintiff; the sole issue submitted to the jury related to the amount, if any, plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury answered the issue $10,000 and from judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.

*Wheatly & Mason by C. R. Wheatly, Jr., for plaintiff ap-pellee.*

*Harvey Hamilton, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

*443BRITT, Judge.

The only questions, presented by defendant in his brief relate to the competency of (1) certain medical testimony and (2) certain testimony relating to loss of earnings by plaintiff, which the court admitted. Suffice to say, we have carefully reviewed the record, with particular reference to the challenged testimony, but find no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hartford, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0684

Issued: April 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 16, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a March 11, 2021 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0684.

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 March 11, 2021 decision was September 7, 2021. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until March 16, 2022,more than 180 days after 

the March 11, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0684 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. 22-0684, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0684 is dismissed.

Issued: April 29, 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

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).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

U.S. BORDER PATROL, San Ysidro, CA,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0630

Issued: May 2, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 20, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a purported February 6, 2023 decision

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0630.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that it has jurisdiction to review final 

adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

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 final 

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3 Although appealed from a February 6, 2023 decision, there is no such decision found in 

the case record. As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board 

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

Id.
2

may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0630 

must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0630 is dismissed.

Issued: May 2, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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

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).
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4980-N-44]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

Effective November 4, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: October 27, 2005.

Mark R. Johnston,

Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 05-21776 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
# L_2007159EN.01003601.xml

| 20.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 159/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 159/36

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 688/2007

of 19 June 2007

amending Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 as regards the entry into storage of intervention butter put on sale

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2) lays down that intervention butter placed on sale must have entered into storage before 1 September 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2) lays down that intervention butter placed on sale must have entered into storage before 1 September 2006.

| (2) | Given the situation on the butter market and the quantities of butter in intervention storage it is appropriate that butter in storage before 1 June 2007 should be available for sale. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Given the situation on the butter market and the quantities of butter in intervention storage it is appropriate that butter in storage before 1 June 2007 should be available for sale.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999, ‘1 September 2006’ is replaced by ‘1 June 2007’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 June 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1919/2006 (OJ L 380, 28.12.2006, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 32

# 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 September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. G. Holliman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
# L_2007041DE.01002202.xml

| 13.2.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 41/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 41/22

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 68/2007 der Kommission vom 25. Januar 2007 über die Festsetzung des Umfangs, in dem die im Januar 2007 gestellten Anträge auf Einfuhrlizenzen für bestimmte Produkte des Sektors Geflügelfleisch entsprechend der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1233/2006 genehmigt werden können

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 19 vom 26. Januar 2007
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 19 vom 26. Januar 2007

Auf der Inhaltsseite und auf Seite 27 muss der Titel wie folgt lauten:

---
l)ismiss: Opinion filed Octoher 26, 2012

In The

Qtnirt Df Appiats

.FIftt itrirt tif Jixai at at1ai

No. 05-1 2-00760-CV

SCOTT RiDGE, ET AL, AppeHants

V.

JON .JESSKN, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th JudiciaL District Court

flallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-08-04870-I)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang

Opinion By Justice Richter

Before the Court is appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellants inform the Court

that the parties’ have setled their differences. Accordingly, we grant appellants’ motion and dismiss

the appeal See TEx. R. Aiw. P. 42.l(a)(l).

JUSTICE

I 20760F.P05
\\•• :

(ituiti Lii :‘pi’iL

fii11! JiLrirL Lif ixa iL Jt11a

JUDGMENT

SCOTT RiDGE AND RIDGE INSURANCE,

INC., Appellants

No. OS 1 2-OO76OCV v

JON JESSEN, JULI JESSEN, GOWAN

COMPANY LL( YORICK INC

BRANDON EBI [ CORRIF IZBEL

MADISON PARK MUSIC INC CASTULO

1)1 LGADO PATRI( IA DLLGADO, ( D

IN’v ES FIG \ I IONS IN( \ UCHAN I IAN

Ml) LH\I I \N000’\ NFUROIOG

ANI)IIE \DA( III ([NI LR INC LARR’

SC[1MITT, AARON C. WESCOTT.

MICHAEL K. RUSSELL, AND

RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC..

Appellees

Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. DCOX04870-D).

Opinion delivered by Justice Richter, Justices

Bridges and Lang, participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is D1Sl’1ISSEi).

it is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered October 26, 2012.

JUSTICE