alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls
o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :
A1 9 D0 03 4

. OUTFRONT MEDI A, LLC v . C I TY OF ATLANTA BOARD OF Z ONI NG ADJ USTMENT et a l
. Up o n co n s i d erat i o n o f t h e Ap p l i cat i on fo r Di s cret i o n ary Ap p eal , i t i s o rd ered
t h at i t b e h ereb y GRANTED. Th e Ap p el l an t m ay fi l e a No t i ce of Ap p eal wi t h i n 1 0 d ay s o f t h e d at e o f th i s ord er. Th e Cl er k o f S u p e r io r Co urt i s di rect ed to i n cl u d e a

co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t ted t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

LC NUM BERS: 2 0 1 8 CV2 9 9 9 6 5

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 27, 2018

08/27/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5294 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5294

 To prevent Federal agencies from regulating greenhouse gas emissions 
for purposes of addressing climate change without express and specific 
              statutory authority, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2010

   Mr. Rehberg (for himself and Ms. Herseth Sandlin) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent Federal agencies from regulating greenhouse gas emissions 
for purposes of addressing climate change without express and specific 
              statutory authority, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Limit Executive Actions Suspending 
Energy Act of 2010'' or the ``LEASE Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) Several well-funded special interest groups filed suit 
        against the Bureau of Land Management to protest 2008 
        competitive oil and gas lease sales in Montana, North Dakota, 
        and South Dakota.
            (2) The plaintiffs alleged that the Bureau of Land 
        Management should have analyzed the potential climate change 
        effects of leasing the parcels pursuant to Interior Order 3226.
            (3) The Bureau of Land Management, in its settlement, 
        agreed to suspend 61 leases issued in 2008 while it conducts 
        further environmental analyses.
            (4) The Bureau of Land Management postponed scheduled 2010 
        oil and gas lease sales in Montana, North Dakota, and South 
        Dakota in order to complete additional environmental reviews 
        under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
        4321 et seq.).

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE REQUIRED.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the head of any Federal 
agency may not take any administrative action to regulate greenhouse 
gas emissions (including by issuing orders, promulgating regulations, 
or otherwise regulating, monitoring, mitigating, predicting, or 
documenting such emissions) for purposes of addressing climate change 
unless a Federal statute expressly and specifically authorizes such 
action.
                                 <all>
```
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.A., Appellant

and

DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING 

SERVICE, Rome, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0687

Issued: May 2, 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 March 30, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from March 12, 2019 merit and April 9, 

2019 nonmerit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0687.

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 12, 2019 decision was September 8, 2019. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until March 30, 2022,more than 180 days after 

the March 12, 2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0687 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. 22-0687, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0687 is dismissed.

Issued: May 2, 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

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).
# L_2007057EN.01000901.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 57/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 57/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 191/2007

of 23 February 2007

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (lemons)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1510/2006 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1510/2006 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for lemons will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for lemons will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for lemons after 23 February 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for lemons after 23 February 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for lemons submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1510/2006, export declarations for which are accepted after 23 February and before 1 March 2007, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 February 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 280, 12.10.2006, p. 16.

3

---
#### DANIEL RAY BRIMAGE, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 10253

August 9, 1978

582 P.2d 375

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, *J. Thomas Susich,*Chief Deputy Public Defender, and *J. Gregory Damm,*Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *D. Geno Menchetti,*Deputy Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Chief Appellate Deputy, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On October 1, 1975, in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Daniel Ray Brimage entered a solemn plea of guilty to two (2) separate counts of robbery (NRS 200.380) and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of those offenses (NRS 193.165).

In April, 1977, Brimage petitioned the First Judicial District Court for a writ of habeas corpus for post-conviction relief contending (1) he had been denied effective assistance of counsel in the Eighth Judicial District Court proceedings; and, (2) his guilty plea was involuntary. Even though no opposition to *521the petition was filed, it was summarily denied, without hearing, five months after it had been filed. The order recited that relief was being denied because Brimage “failed to file his Petition within one year following the entry of judgment of conviction, and upon his failure to show good cause for delay in failing to do so. . . .”

In this appeal, Brimage contends we are compelled to reverse because the district judge refused to (1) appoint counsel and (2) hear and resolve the allegations in the habeas petition. He argues that his uncontroverted allegations constitute a *prima facie*showing of good cause for his failure to present the claims within one year after conviction, as required by NRS 177.375(2). We agree.

We do not reach the merit, if any, of the appeal. Brimage’s claims have not been considered and resolved, either from the record, or after an evidentiary hearing.1
      *See*Stewart v. Warden, 92 Nev. 588, 555 P.2d 218 (1976). *See also*Smith v. Yeager, 393 U.S. 122 (1968). *Cf.*Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), and its progeny. Accordingly, we vacate the district judge’s order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief and remand this case for further proceedings, including the appointment of counsel to represent petitioner.

After the appeal had been noticed, the Chief Appellate Deputy in the Clark County District Attorney’s office, as counsel for respondent, designated and filed, as a “supplemental record on appeal,” transcripts of the proceedings involving Brimage in the Eighth Judicial District Court. Those transcripts were not before the district judge in the post-conviction proceedings.
**Exhibit32.3**

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Mitchell K. Fogelman, the Senior Vice President-Finance andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

 

1.                           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| Date: May 11, 2005 | MITCHELL K. FOGELMAN             |
|--------------------|----------------------------------|
|               | Mitchell K. Fogelman             |
|               | Senior Vice President -  Finance |
|               | and Chief Financial Officer      |

 

23

----
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 18 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00700- CV

KEVIN VICKERSON, Appellant

V. KZARS JEWELRY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-79966

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 9, 2018. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On September 19, 2018, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen2

days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Jewell, and Wise.
#### IRA L. COFFEY v. JOHN A. VANDERBLOEMEN, JR.

No. 6925DC50

(Filed 30 April 1969)

Appeal and Error § 39— failure to aptly docket record on appeal

Where record on appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals 141 days after the date of judgment appealed from, and there was no order by the trial tribunal extending the time for docketing, the Court of Appeals *ex mero motu*will dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the Rules. Court of Appeals Rules Nos. 5 and 48.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Evans, J.,*at the 28 June 1968 Session of Caldwell District Court.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of a collision between an automobile operated by plaintiff and an automobile operated by defendant. The usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and amount of damages were submitted to the jury who answered the issues of negligence and contributory negligence in the affirmative. From judgment in favor of defendant predicated thereon, plaintiff appealed.

*Ted S. Douglas for plaintiff appellant.*

*W. G. Mitchell for defendant appellee.*

*505Britt, J.

Rule 5 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina requires that the record on appeal be docketed in this Court within ninety days after the date of the judgment, order, decree, or determination appealed from; provided, the trial tribunal may, for good cause, extend the time not exceeding sixty days, for docketing the record on appeal. Rule 48 provides that if the rules of this Court are not complied with, the appeal may be dismissed.

The judgment entered in this action is dated 28 June 1968, and the record contains no order extending the time for docketing the record on appeal. In fact, the record discloses that at the time plaintiff’s counsel gave notice of appeal, the trial judge stated, “Notice of appeal is noted and you are granted ninety days in which to appeal.”' The record was filed in this Court on 19 November 1968 —144 days; after the date of judgment. For failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rules, this Court, *ex mero motu,*dismisses the appeal. *Kelly v. Washington,*3 N.C. App. 362, 164 S.E. 2d 634.

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record, particularly with regard to the assignments of error brought forward and argued in plaintiff’s brief, but find no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

Appeal dismissed.

Mallard, C.J., and Parrer, J., concur.
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 SoftNet Technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Holt, President, Chief Operating Officer and Director, and James Booth Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, 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 requirement of Section 12(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 result of operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the report.

				                                                                                                           /s/  ***James Booth                        ***                                                                                                           James Booth				                                                                                                           Chairman of the Board, CEO				                                                                                                           /s/  ***Kevin Holt                           ***                                                                                                           Kevin Holt				                                                                                                           President, COO				                                                                                                           (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)				November 17, 2006				A Signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SoftNet Technology Corp. and will be retained by SoftNet Technology Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Flexible Solutions International, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 2) of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  December 5, 2005                         /s/ DANIEL B. O'BRIEN
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Daniel B. O'Brien
                                                Chief Financial Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RIVERDALE 

BRANCH, Riverdale, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1359

Issued: May 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Dr. Rita N. Oganwu, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 17, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

February 3, 2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1348.

The Board subsequently received a second copy of appellant’s June 17, 2020 appeal of 

OWCP’s February 3, 2020 decision. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned 

Docket No. 20-1359. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, since there are now two 

docket numbers assigned for a review of the same OWCP decision, one of the docket numbers 

should be dismissed. Since the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 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 also 18 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

20-1359 to the copy of appellant’s June 17, 2020 appeal request, this docket number should be 

dismissed. The appeal docketed as No. 20-1348 will go forward. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 20-1359 is dismissed.

Issued: May 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: November 8, 2005
    By:
    /s/ FREDERICK J. ERICKSONName:
    Frederick J. EricksonTitle:
    Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer