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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, FORT POINT POST 

OFFICE, Boston, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0183

Issued: December 22, 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 December 15, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a March 23, 2023 merit decision of 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 24-0183.

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 23, 2023 decision was September 19, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until December 15, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the March 23, 2023 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 24-0183 is 

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 

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

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. 

24-0183, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0183 is dismissed.

Issued: December 22, 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).
#### Sean P. DOYLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Edward S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., Director of the California Department of Corrections; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-57198.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dee. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 10, 2004.

Sean P. Doyle, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

Michael C. Keller, Esq., AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General (LA), Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sean P. Doyle, California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We review de novo the denial of Doyle’s § 2254, *see Alvarado v. Hill,*252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Doyle contends that he received ineffective assistance when his counsel failed to investigate, determine, and advise him of the foreseeable consequences of rejecting a plea offer. Even assuming deficient conduct, Doyle fails to affirmatively show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. Throughout pretrial proceedings, Doyle maintained his innocence, and expressed no desire to plead guilty, until *763after his wife’s testimony which showed prior acts were similar to victim’s allegations was ruled admissible. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Accordingly, the state court’s conclusion did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The merits panel declines to address any issues not certified in the certificate of appealability. *See*9th Cir. Rule 22-1.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

As independent petroleum engineers and geologists, we consent to the reference to our firm in the W&T Offshore, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 and to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-Q to our estimate of reserves and to the use of our report on reserves and the incorporation of the report on reserves as of September 30, 2005
included in the W&T Offshore, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/    FREDERIC D.
SEWELLFrederic D. Sewell Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dallas, Texas

May 12, 2006
#### THRASHER v. THRASHER

No. 5 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 534.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 10 July 1969.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5610 

To provide a technical adjustment with respect to funding for independent 

living centers under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to ensure 

stability for such centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2010 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. FILNER, 

and Mr. FARR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To provide a technical adjustment with respect to funding 

for independent living centers under the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 in order to ensure stability for such centers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Independent Living 

5 Centers Technical Adjustment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS TECHNICAL AD7 JUSTMENT. 

8 In awarding funds to existing centers for independent 

9 living (described in section 722(c) of the Rehabilitation 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5610 IH

1 Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 796f–1(c))) in fiscal year 2010 

2 and thereafter in accordance with the priority established 

3 under section 722(e)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 796f– 

4 1(e)(1)), the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services 

5 Administration shall disregard any funds provided to such 

6 centers from funds appropriated by the American Recov7 ery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) 

8 for the centers for independent living program under part 

9 C of title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

10 796f et seq.) if, notwithstanding any contrary provision 

11 of a State plan submitted under section 704 of such Act 

12 (29 U.S.C. 796c)— 

13 (1) the Commissioner receives a request from 

14 the State, not later than July 15, 2010, jointly 

15 signed by the State’s designated State unit (referred 

16 to in section 704(c) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 

17 796c(c))) and the State’s Statewide Independent 

18 Living Council (established under section 705 of 

19 such Act (29 U.S.C. 796d)), for the Commissioner 

20 to disregard any funds provided to centers for inde21 pendent living in the State from funds appropriated 

22 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

23 2009 (Public Law 111–5) for the centers for inde24 pendent living program under part C of title VII of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5610 IH

1 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 796f et 

2 seq.); 

3 (2) the Commissioner is not conducting a com4 petition to establish a new center for independent 

5 living with such funds in the State; and 

6 (3) such funds were not distributed among ex7 isting centers for independent living in the same pro8 portion as the regular funds appropriated for fiscal 

9 year 2009 for the centers for independent living pro10 gram under part C of title VII of the Rehabilitation 

11 Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 796f et seq.). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008035EN.01000401.xml

| 8.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4910 — Motorola/Vertex)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 35/02)

On 21 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 web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site 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 32007M4910. 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 32007M4910. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67142-67145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-06]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-06 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: October 31, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 67143]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO05.000


[[Page 67144]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO05.001


[[Page 67145]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO05.002

[FR Doc. 05-21987 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
* 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. 95-20737 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FORTUNATUS BOMA WILCOX, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-95-0091

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fortunatus Boma Wilcox appeals from his sentence following his convictions for one count of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property, four counts of interstate transportation of stolen property and aiding and abetting, and one count of possession of stolen mail and aiding and abetting. Wilcox argues that the district court erred by refusing to grantNo. 95-20737 -2- him a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and that the Government breached the plea agreement by releasing information that Wilcox was cooperating with the Government. Based upon the testimony presented at the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err by refusing to grant Wilcox a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Further, Wilcox's guilty plea was not entered pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement; rather, Wilcox pleaded guilty after the initial plea agreement between Wilcox and the Government had been withdrawn. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1046

JOHN SZYKA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FARM BUREAU, Hendersonville, North Carolina;

KIM BANKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CA-98-88-1-T)

Submitted: February 26, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Szyka, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Dale McInnes, CLONINGER,

BARBOUR & ARCURI, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Szyka appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellees, Farm

Bureau and Kim Banks, have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal

asserting that Appellant’s, John Szyka, notice of appeal was untimely filed. Although the district court’s judgment was marked as

“filed” on October 27, 1998, it was not entered on the district

court’s docket sheet until November 2, 1998. See Wilson v. Murray,

806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986) (pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the date of the

judgment that was entered on the docket sheet is the date we take

as the effective date of the district court's decision). Thus,

Szyka timely filed his notice of appeal on November 27, 1998. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Accordingly, we deny Appellees’ motion to

dismiss this appeal.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Szyka v. Farm Bureau, No. CA-98-88-1-T

(W.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 1998). We also deny Szyka’s motion to remand

this case to the district court and deny Szyka’s motion for a ten

day extension to file an additional supplemental brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                             369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                        72
<INVENTORY>                                      6,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,214
<PP&E>                                           3,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,197
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           367
<OTHER-SE>                                         900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,662
<SALES>                                          6,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,144
<CGS>                                            4,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    260
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       251
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        





</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5502 

To amend the effective date of the gift card provisions of the Credit Card 

Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Mr. MAFFEI (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the effective date of the gift card provisions of 

the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DELAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 Title IV of the Credit Card Accountability Responsi5 bility and Disclosure Act, is amended by striking section 

6 403 and inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under sub9 section (b) of this section, this title and the amendments 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5502 IH

1 made by this title shall become effective 15 months after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

3 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.— 

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a gift certifi5 cate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card 

6 that was produced prior to April 1, 2010, the effec7 tive date of the disclosure requirements described in 

8 sections 915(b)(3) and (c)(2)(B) of the Electronic 

9 Funds Transfer Act shall be January 31, 2011, pro10 vided that an issuer of such a certificate or card 

11 shall— 

12 ‘‘(A) comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) 

13 of section 915(b) of such Act; 

14 ‘‘(B) consider any such certificate or card 

15 for which funds expire to have no expiration 

16 date with respect to the underlying funds; 

17 ‘‘(C) at a consumer’s request, replace such 

18 certificate or card that has funds remaining at 

19 no cost to the consumer; and 

20 ‘‘(D) comply with the disclosure require21 ments of paragraph (2) of this subsection. 

22 ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.—The disclo23 sure requirements of this subsection are met by pro24 viding notice to consumers, via in-store signage, 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5502 IH

1 messages during customer service calls, Web sites, 

2 and general advertising, that— 

3 ‘‘(A) any such certificate or card for which 

4 funds expire shall be deemed to have no expira5 tion date with respect to the underlying funds; 

6 ‘‘(B) consumers holding such certificate or 

7 card shall have a right to a free replacement 

8 certificate or card that includes the packaging 

9 and materials, typically associated with such a 

10 certificate or card; and 

11 ‘‘(C) any dormancy fee, inactivity fee, or 

12 service fee for such certificates or cards that 

13 might otherwise be charged shall not be 

14 charged if such fees do not comply with section 

15 915 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 

16 ‘‘(3) PERIOD FOR DISCLOSURE REQUIRE17 MENTS.—The notice requirements in paragraph (2) 

18 of this subsection shall continue until January 31, 

19 2013.’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### SCOTT DEAN KELL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11062

October 29, 1980

618 P.2d 350

*792*William N. Dunseath,*Public Defender, and *Michael B. McDonald,*Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellant.

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Calvin R. X. Dunlap,*District Attorney, and *EdwardB. Horn,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant Scott Dean Kell, a minor, was charged with murder in the district court. He moved the court for an order directing an investigation to determine whether he should be treated as a juvenile in the juvenile division of the district court. The district court, however, concluded that it lacked authority under the Juvenile Court Act, NRS 62.010 *et seq.,*to transfer a case where the juvenile was charged with murder to the juvenile division of the court, and, accordingly, denied appellant’s motion. The case proceeded to trial. Kell was convicted of first degree murder. He appeals the conviction. We affirm.

We recognize, as did the district court, that there are ambiguities in the Juvenile Court Act which may suggest that the legislature intended to allow a juvenile charged with murder or attempted murder, NRS 62.040(l)(c)(l); 62.060(1), to make a showing of “exceptional circumstances” sufficient to warrant his transfer to the juvenile division.1 However, the juvenile court system is a creation of statute, and it possesses only the *793jurisdiction expressly provided for it in the statute. *See*Levy & Zentner Co. v. Justice Court, 48 Nev. 425, 233 P. 40 (1925); Paul & Co. v. Beegan & Co., 1 Nev. 327 (1865). Although a statutory provision by which a juvenile charged with murder or attempted murder may have his case transferred to the juvenile division of the district court may well be desirable, in certain circumstances, *see*NRS 62.290, we may not imply *ex nihilo*a grant of jurisdiction to try such an offense as a delinquent act within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under the present provisions of NRS 62.040(1)(c).2

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

The legislative history of the act, Minutes of the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 21, 1977, indicates that the proponents of the bill thought that transfer of such cases would be possible on a showing of exceptional circumstances justifying juvenile treatment of the offender. There is a further indication of this intent in NRS 62.170(7), which provides:

> During the pendency of a criminal or quasi-criminal charge of murder or attempted murder, a child may petition the juvenile division for temporary placement in a juvenile detention facility pending final disposition *of the issue of jurisdiction.*[Emphasis added.]

2

NRS 62.040 provides that the juvenile court “has exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings:.. .. (c) Concerning any child living or found within the county who has committed a delinquent act. A child commits a delinquent act if he: (1) Commits an act designated a crime under the law of the State of Nevada except murder or attempted murder . . .” ■