alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32003D0101

**2003/101/EC: Commission Decision of 13 February 2003 amending for the 12th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) 	(notified under document number C(2003) 499)***Official Journal L 041 , 14/02/2003 P. 0046 - 0059*

Commission Decision

of 13 February 2003

amending for the 12th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2003) 499)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/101/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1282/2002(2), and in particular Article 17 (3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/776/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of Australia and the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of an additional equine semen collection centre respectively.

(3) It is appropriate to amend the list of approved centres in the light of new information received from the third countries concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(4) Decision 2000/284/EC should be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 February 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 187, 16.7.2002, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 267, 4.10.2002, p. 30.

ANNEX

"ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>"
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

AGRICULTURE MARKETING SERVICE, 

Winter Haven, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1262

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 August 30, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a January 14, 2022 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1262.

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 January 14, 2022 decision was July 13, 2022. As appellant 

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

January 14, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1262 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. 22-1262, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1262 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).
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 the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        To obtain copies of the survey, contact the Bureau clearance officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20192, telephone (703) 648-7313, or go to the Web site (                        *http://frogweb.nbii.gov/​narcam/​*).                    

Dated: October 17, 2005.

Susan D. Haseltine,

Associate Director for Biology.

[FR Doc. 05-21219  Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-47-M
### NUMBER 13

- 1 5

- 00 482

- C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CHARLOTT E P. SOLIZ AND JESSE (JESUS) SOLIZ AND IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 94 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Before Justices Benavides , Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam
This cause is before the Court on appell ant’ s motion for extension of time to file
the brief. Appellant, Jesse (Jesus) Soliz , appearing pro se, appeals from a judgment of divorce involving minor children. The record in this matter was filed on December 7,
2015 , and accordingly, appellant ’ s brief was due on January 6, 2016

. On March 3, 2016, this Court abated the appeal because appellant filed a motion to appoint counsel. The trial court conducted a hearing and made findings that appellant wishes to prosecute the2

appeal and although appellant is indigent, he is not legally entitled to court appointed counsel. On April 22, 2016 the appeal was reinstated and appellant was notified the brief was due on or before May 23, 2016. Appellant has now filed a motion requesting until July 7, 2016 to file the appellate brief in this cause. The Court, having fully examined and considered ap pellant's motion for extension of time to file the brief, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motion for extension of time to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor upon the delay c aused by appellant’s failure to have filed a brief in this

matter. Appellant's motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby granted, and the appellant, is hereby ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before July
7, 2016

. Further motions for extension of time wi ll not be favorabl y entertained by the
Court.

PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 3 1 st day of May , 2016.
|                                                | State      or Other  | Date      of        |            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------|-----------------|--------|
|                                                | Jurisdiction      of | Incorporation,      | Ownership       |
|                                                | Incorporation        | Organization        | (Direct      or |
| Subsidiary                                          | or      Organization | or      Acquisition | Indirect)       |
| 1.Global      Oro LLC                               | Delaware             |                | 2003            |   | 100% |   |
| 2.Global      Plata LLC                             | Delaware             |                | 2003            |   | 100% |   |
| 3.Global      Gold Mining LLC                       | Delaware             |                | 2003            |   | 100% |   |
| 4.Global      Gold Hankavan LLC                     | Armenia              |                | 2003            |   | 100% |   |
| 5.Mego-Gold      LLC                                | Armenia              |                | 2005            |   | 100% |   |
| 6.Getik      Mining Company LLC                     | Armenia              |                | 2006            |   | 100% |   |
| 7.Global      Gold Uranium LLC                      | Delaware             |                | 2007            |   | 100% |   |
| 8.Global      Gold Armenia, LLC                     | Delaware             |                | 2003            |   | 100% |   |
| 9.Minera      Global Chile Limitada                 | Chile                |                | 2004            |   | 100% |   |
| 10.Compania      Minera Global Gold Valdivia S.C.M. | Chile                |                | 2007            |   | 100% |   |
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9**

**- 2105** 

LUDDY ANGIRA; KEENS OMONDI OYUGI ,
Petitioner s ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Imm igration Appeals

.

Submitted : December 30 , 2010 Decided: January 2 8 , 2011

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kell Enow, ENOW & ASSOCIATES, Marietta, G eorgia, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Luddy Angira and her husband, derivative applicant

Keens Oyugi, both native s and citizen s of Kenya, petition for

review of an order of the Board of Im migration Appeals

dismis sing their appeal from the I mmigration Judge’s denial of

Angira’s applications for relief from removal.

Petitioners first challenge the determination that

Angira failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain

reversal of a determination denyi ng eligibility for relief, an

alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S.

478, 483

- 84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels

a contrary result.
Having f ailed to qualify f or asylum, Angira cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 ( 4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza

Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally , we u p hold the
finding below that Angira failed to demonstrate that it is more

likely than not that s he woul d b e tortured if removed to Kenya

.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010 ).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### BYERS v. HIGHWAY COMMISSION

No. 9 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 139.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 31 January 1969.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/15/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

DONALD LEE ROGERS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JACK COWLEY,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6071

(D.C. No. CIV-95-995-A)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Donald L. Rogers filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising five claims as grounds for relief. The
-2-

petition was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that the court find

Mr. Rogers’ first two claims procedurally barred, and all claims, including the

first two, insufficient on the merits. After de novo review, the district court

adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation in its entirety and denied Mr.

Rogers’ petition. The district court also denied Mr. Rogers’ motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and his application for certificate of probable cause. Mr. Rogers

appeals. 

In order to succeed on his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

Mr. Rogers must show: (1) a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and

(2) the existence of a nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the

issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369

U.S. 438 (1962); DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991). As

noted by the district court, and as shown on the application for in forma pauperis

status, Mr. Rogers has $448.23 in his prison savings account. Because Mr.

Rogers failed to establish his inability to pay the filing fee, we deny his motion to

proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
Exhibit 10.33

   Confidential portions of this document indicated by ***** have been omitted
                    and filed separately with the Commission



                                               Alcoa Extruded
                                               Construction Products

                                               Tifton Aluminum Company, Inc.
                                               250 Southwest Boulevard
                                               P O Box 88
                                               Tifton GA 31793-0088 USA
                                               Tel: 1-229-382-7330
                                               Fax: 1-229-386-6707

December 13, 2001



Mr. Gary Ihrke
V.P Operations
Featherlite Trailers
P O Box 320
Cresco, IA 52136


Dear Gary:

This letter will serve as confirmation of our agreement finalized today. Alcoa
has purchased, with your authorization, ***** pounds of aluminum for your
extrusion needs from March through June of 2002. The extrusions will be
purchased and delivered from our Yankton Plant at a base price of ***** per
pound on solid shapes, and ***** per pound on hollow shapes. As per previous
agreements, any side panels will require a ***** adder. All prices include
delivery to Cresco, Iowa. Featherlite will provide payment for each truckload
via wire transfer at point of shipment. We are reserving ***** pounds per week
to support your program. the prices and tonnage stated above are firm as metal
has been secured to cover this contract. Thanks for your business.


Yours truly,



Herb Grubbs
Regional Sales Manager

Cc:      Brian Plunk - Plant City
         Charlie Campbell - Plant city
         Jan Mauch - Yankton


                                                                     Page 1 of 1
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Mobile, AL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1334

Issued: September 30, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Eucellis Sullivan, Esq., for the appellant1

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 August 31, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal from a purported 

March 13, 2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1334.

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.2 This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no cla im f or a f ee f or 

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 a pproval m ay constitute a 

misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Dem ands 

for payment of fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for 

investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).
2

date appellant filed her appeal.3 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. 4 As 

there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise 

jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1334 must be dismissed.5 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1334 is dismissed.

Issued: September 30, 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

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days f rom the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

4

Id.

5 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
#### McMANUS v. CHICK HAVEN FARMS

No. 44 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 177.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 19 May 1969.
EXHIBIT 22.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED

         Listed below are all the  subsidiaries of Inter-Tel,  Incorporated,  as
well as the  jurisdiction  under the laws of which each was  organized,  and the
percentage  of  the  outstanding  voting  stock  of  each  owned  by  Inter-Tel,
Incorporated.

                                           Percentage          State or
                                            of Voting        Jurisdiction
Name                                       Stock Owned      of Organization
----                                       -----------      ---------------

Inter-Tel Integrated Systems, Inc.            100%              Arizona

Inter-Tel Communications, Inc.                100%              Arizona

Inter-Tel Leasing, Inc.                       100%              Arizona

Inter-Tel Midwest, Inc.                       100%              Delaware

Inter-Tel Incorporated-New Jersey             100%              Delaware

Inter-Tel NetSolutions, Inc.                  100%              Texas

Inter-Tel DataCom, Inc.                       100%              Delaware

Southwest Telephone Systems, Inc.             100%              New Mexico

American Telcom Corp. of Georgia, Inc.        100%              Georgia

Access West, Inc.                             100%              Delaware

Inter-Tel Equipment (UK), Ltd.                100%              United Kingdom

Inter-Tel Japan, Inc.                         100%              Japan

Florida Telephone Systems, Inc.               100%              Florida

NTL Corporation dba ComNet of Ohio            100%              Ohio

                                       51
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000052466
<NAME>                        Exhibit 27
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         20,444
<SECURITIES>                                   377
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,143)
<INVENTORY>                                    38,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               243,909
<PP&E>                                         426,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (188,703)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 563,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,529
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       16,286
<OTHER-SE>                                     350,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   563,264
<SALES>                                        330,485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,485
<CGS>                                          233,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,479
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                15,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,703
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,703
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .65



</TABLE>