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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GREENS NORTH 

POST OFFICE, Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0223

Issued: February 2, 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 2, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a March 10, 2022 nonmerit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0223.

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 10, 2022 decision was September 6, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until December 2, 2022, more than 180 days after 

the March 10, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0223 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 

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).
2

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. 23-0223, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0223 is dismissed.

Issued: February 2, 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).
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32004R0134

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2004 of 27 January 2004 fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 2004 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network***Official Journal L 021 , 28/01/2004 P. 0008 - 0008*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2004

of 27 January 2004

fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 2004 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 79/65/EEC of 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community(1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 of 13 July 1983 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings(2), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 provides that a standard fee shall be paid by the Commission to the Member States for each duly completed farm return forwarded to it within the period prescribed in Article 3 of that Regulation.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 113/2003(3) fixed the amount of the standard fee for the 2003 accounting year at EUR 138 per farm return. The trend in costs and its effects on the cost of completing the farm return justify a revision of the fee.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard fee provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 shall be fixed at EUR 140.

Article 2

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

It shall apply for the 2004 accounting year.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 January 2004.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 109, 23.6.1965, p. 1859/65. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2059/2003 (OJ L 308, 25.11.2003, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 190, 14.7.1983, p. 25.

(3) OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 3.
#### RANDY ANDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11025

July 29, 1980

614 P.2d 540

Gunderson, J., dissented.

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *Ira H. Hecht,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the'Court,

Manoukian, J.:

Appellant was convicted of robbery with use of a deadly weapon. *See*NRS 200.380, 193.165. The sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the weapons enhancement.

At trial appellant admitted using a blank gun in the commission of the robbery. In Allen v. State, 96 Nev. 334, 609 P.2d 321 (1980), we held that use of an inoperable firearm in the commission of a crime would support the enhanced penalty. In so deciding, we stated: “A firearm is dangerous, not only because it can inflict deadly harm, but because its use may provoke a deadly reaction from the victim or from bystanders'.” *634
      *Id.*at 336, 609 P.2d at 322. We perceive no substantial distinction between the inoperable firearm in *Allen*and the blank gun used in the instant case.

Affirmed.

Mowbray, C. J., and Thompson and Batjer, JJ., concur.

Gunderson, J.,

dissenting:

Any dicta in Allen v. State, 96 Nev. 334, 609 P.2d 321 (1980) notwithstanding, I respectfully submit that the term “deadly weapon” should be applied only to objects having that essential nature. In Allen v. State, a robber’s pistol misfired when he attempted to shoot his victim. This court decided not to burden enhancement cases with debate over whether something clearly a “weapon,” and clearly “deadly” in its essential nature, is actually operable or inoperable at the moment of the crime. I submit that such a holding does not support the view that an object which is neither a weapon nor deadly, such as a cap pistol or a rubber knife, should be deemed a “deadly weapon” in law.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William F. Truscott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Brian J.
McGrane, as Principal and 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.


/s/ William F. Truscott
-------------------------------------
Name: William F. Truscott
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 5, 2008


/s/ Brian J. McGrane
-------------------------------------
Name: Brian J. McGrane
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 5, 2008
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BRANDON A LEXANDER MOLINET

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3810

[ February 4, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Michael G. Kaplan , Judge; L.T. Case No.

19001050CT10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty,

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman,

Assist ant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., W ARNER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Thomas Golden *vs.*Susan C. Knowles.

Suffolk.

April 5. —

May 6, 1876.

Colt & Lord, JJ., absent.

A demurrer to evidence must be in writing with a joinder by the adverse party.

A demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence admits all the facts that the evidence tends to prove, and, if it is overruled, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

A report from the Superior Court in an action of contract stated the plaintiff’s evidence, and that thereupon “ the defendant demurred to the evidence, and the case is reported for the determination of the Supreme Judicial Court, it being agreed that if the defendant’s demurrer be sustained, there shall be an entry of verdict for defendant; otherwise a new trial.” It appeared by papers transmitted with the report that a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. *Held,*that the proceedings were irregular and erroneous, and that the report must be dismissed.

*337Contract, by a vendee, at a sale by auction of a house and parcel of land, against the vendor for breach of an agreement to convey. Trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., who reported the case for the consideration of this court. The substance of the report appears in the opinion.

*J. C. Crowley £ J. A.*Maxwell, for the plaintiff.

*A.*Cottrell, for the defendant.

Morton, J.

No question of law is properly before us. After reciting the evidence, the report states that thereupon “the defendant demurred to the evidence, and the case is reported for the determination of the Supreme Judicial Court, it being agreed that if the defendant’s demurrer be sustained, there shall be an entry of verdict for defendant: otherwise a new trial.”

A demurrer to evidence is rarely resorted to in our practice, as the statutes furnish more simple and convenient modes of raising any questions of law which it is desired to submit to this court. Such demurrer, when taken, must be in writing, and there must be a joinder by the adverse party, so that the record may raise an issue of law upon which the court may give judgment. One of the effects of a demurrer is, that it admits all the facts which the evidence of the plaintiff tends to prove; another is, that if the demurrer is overruled, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. *Copeland*v. *New England Ins. Co.*22 Pick. 135. *Gibson*v. *Hunter,*2 H. Bl. 187. *Fowle*v. *Common Council of Alexandria,*11 Wheat. 320.

In this case there was no written demurrer filed by the defendant and no joinder by the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant demurred orally, and, although the papers transmitted to us show that a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, the report provides that if the demurrer is overruled there is to be a new trial. The whole proceeding was irregular and erroneous.

*Report*dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

May 4, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,731
<PP&E>                                         246,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                (65,097)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,948
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,648
<SALES>                                         45,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,084
<CGS>                                           30,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,230
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,585
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as explained in Note 3
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Trusts Annual Report to Unit
Holders for the year ended December 31, 2005, attached as Exhibit 13 to the Report, in
accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47,
released September 16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner
that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is
customary to other royalty trusts); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 TEXASBANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:
    
    Lee Ann AndersonTitle:
    
    Vice President and Trust OfficerDate:
    
    March 15, 2006
 *
    
    The Trust has no executive officers.
# L_2007202EN.01001801.xml

| 3.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 202/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 202/18

---

DECISION No 930/2007/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 7 June 2007

on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund according to point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Hungary and Greece submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two disasters caused by flooding, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Hungary and Greece submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two disasters caused by flooding,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 24 370 114 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2007.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

G. GLOSER

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
819 A.2d 1030

#### STATE of Maryland v. Darris Alaric WARE.

No. 50

Sept. Term 2001.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

August 22, 2002.

Annabelle L. Lise, Assistant Attorney General and J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, for Appellant.

Fred Warren Bennett of Bennett & Nathans, LLP, Greenbelt, and Arcangelo M. Tuminelli, Baltimore, for Appellee.

Submitted before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.

ORDER

The Court having considered the State’s application for leave to appeal from the grant of post conviction relief in a capital case, Darris Ware’s application for leave to appeal, and the answers filed thereto, in the above-entitled case, it is this 22nd day of August, 2002,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that both applications be, and they are hereby, DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED, that, as to the belated appeal ordered by the Circuit Court on the single issue of whether Darris Ware had received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, consideration of that appeal is deferred pending the new sentencing *551proceeding, and the belated appeal will be considered with the appeal, if any, from the decision in the sentencing hearing.
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Thomas Gurkowski, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: August 22, 2006.  /s/ Thomas Gurkowski _______________________ Thomas Gurkowski (Secretary/Treasurer and CFO)