alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
'31/2013 10:33 FAX 01 1 

# PIGINAL

IN THE SUPREMECOURT OFTHE STATE OFMONTANA DA 21-0390 ****** RANDY LAEDEKE, and, DARLA PRENN, for THE ESTATE OF LILA M. LAEDEKE, PlaintiffAppellee,

-VSBILLINGS CLINIC,

DefendantAppellant.
* * * ** ORDER 

# HLLO APR 2 8 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of IVIontana GRANTING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ONE LAST ADDITIONAL DAY EXTENSION OFTIME TO FILEOPENING BRIEF Appellant has filed a motion for a one last additional one day extension of firm from April 27,2022, to April 28,2022 to file Appellant's Opening Brief in the above entitled case because the print shop in Helena producing the copies and binding advis.t;c1 they had some issues today and did not get Appellant's brief and copies delivered to tii,, Clerk of Supreme Court today but assured it would be done tomorrow. For good causi shown:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Appellant's motion for one last additional one day extension of time is GRANTED AND APPELLANT and shall file and serve hi3 opening briefon or before April 28,2022. Dated this 2 -~day of 

# r

z___ \ ,2022. By ie,//vdf;fr\t 04/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0390
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, AMC FINANCE UNIT 

POST OFFICE, Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0849

Issued: July 5, 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 June 5, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a July 21, 2022 nonmerit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0849.

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 July 21, 2022 decision was January 17, 2023. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until June 5, 2023, more than 180 days after the July 21, 

2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0849 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 compelling 

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

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. 2 3-0849, 

must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0849 is dismissed.

Issued: July 5, 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).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis LUEVANO-AGUILAR, also known as Luis Enrique Luevano, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50577.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mary Stillinger, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Luevano-Aguilar raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez*
      *611
      *Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 10.17


 


Certain personally identifiable information contained in this document,
marked by brackets as [***], has been omitted from this exhibit pursuant to Item 601(a)(6) under Regulation S-K.


 


 


 





Amendment to Employment Agreement


 





	Between	and
	 	MoonLake Immunotherapeutics AG	 	Prof. Dr. Kristian Reich
	 	Untermüli 7 / Postfach 7444	 	[***]
	 	6302 Zug, Switzerland	 	 
	 	(“Employer”)	 	(“Employee”)
	 	 	 	 
	 	(together hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”)	 	 



 


The employee hereby agrees and accepts
the following terms with regards to the Swiss employee benefit schemes put in place by the employer. The herewith stated terms shall clarify
or, if specified, substitute the previously agreed terms of the Employment Agreement that was signed by the Parties on April 30, 2021.


 


Clarification to Section 6 – Pension fund:


 


	-	The Employee confirms that he is spending at least 25 percent of his working time in Germany, his country
of residence, and is therefore subject to German social security.



 


	-	The parties agree that the employee is personally responsible for the respective payments into the German
social security schemes.



 


	-	According to section 5.3 of the Employment Agreement, the Employee is eligible to an additional payment
equivalent to the difference between the hypothetical Swiss employer contributions (AHV/IV/EO, ALV, BVG) and the minimum German mandatory
employer contributions. From November 1st, 2021, onwards, the parties agree that the hypothetical Swiss employer contributions shall also
include employer contributions to sick leave Insurance (KTG) and work accident insurance (UVG/UVG-Z).



 


	-	The parties agree that this additional payment corresponds per month of full-time employment to CHF 4'387.57
from the commencement date of the employment to October 2021, and CHF 4'525.93 from November 1st, 2021 onwards (compare Annex 1), and
shall be recalculated in times of bonus payout, base salary changes or if the terms of the employment agreement or mandatory social security
contributions in Switzerland or Germany change when the expected differential monthly payment exceeds CHF 150. Exchange rate fluctuation
shall not be considered.



 


Clarification to Section 6 – Pension fund:


 


	-	As per the above, the Employee is subject to German social security. The employer has therefore not enrolled
the employee In the Swiss statutory and occupational pension plan.



 


Clarification to Section 10 – Salary payment in the
event of illness or accident:


 


	-	As per the above, the Employee is subject to German social security. The employer has therefore not taken
out any daily sickness benefits or accident Insurance for the employee. It is the employee’s solely responsibility to be duly insured.



 


The Employer may unilaterally
amend or supplement the company benefits scheme at any time but will inform the employee accordingly.


 


	Hamburg, 08-NOV-2021	 	/s/ Kristian Reich
	Place and date	 	Prof. Kristian Reich
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                W. G. Holliman                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | W.                G. Holliman                       |
|   | Title:                Chief Executive Officer       |
|   | Furniture                Brands International, Inc. |
|   | November                9, 2006                     |
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MILITARY 

SEALIFT COMMAND, NAVAL STATION

NORFOLK, Norfolk, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1233

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 8, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a July 28, 2021 nonmerit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1233.

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 July 28, 2021 decision was January 24, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until August 8, 2022, more than 180 days after the July 28, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1233 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

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

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient 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 -

1233, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1233 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).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                      [LETTERHEAD OF HANOVER DIRECT, INC.]

                                                                  March 27, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

                 Re: Hanover Direct, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

            Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") has audited the balance sheets of
Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company") as of December 29, 2001 and December 30,
2000, and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), shareholders'
equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the three fiscal years in the period
ended December 29, 2001 (collectively, the "Financial Statements"). The
Financial Statements are included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2001, which will be filed with the
Commission on March 28, 2002.

         Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, the
Company has obtained a letter of representation from Andersen that the audit was
subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on audits and availability
of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates
of Andersen is not relevant to the audit.

                                            Very truly yours,


                                            /s/ Edward M. Lambert

                                            Edward M. Lambert
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 10.33

# SECOND
AMENDMENT TO
OCEAN ENERGY, INC.
EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT

WHEREAS,
OCEAN ENERGY, INC., a Texas corporation, formerly known as Seagull Energy
Corporation (the Company), and JAMES T. HACKETT (the
Employee) have heretofore executed an instrument entitled
SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT (the Agreement), evidencing the terms
and conditions of the Employees membership in the OCEAN ENERGY, INC.
EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, formerly known as the Seagull Energy
Corporation Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan ( the Plan); and

WHEREAS, the Company
and the Employee desire to amend the Agreement;

NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective as of January 1,
2001:

1. For purposes of Section 1.01(14) of the Plan, Employees Normal Retirement
Date shall be the date upon which the Employee attains fifty-five years of age.
2. As amended hereby, the Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

EXECUTED this 14th day
of December 2000.

`OCEAN ENERGY, INC.


                                                              By:_________________________________
                                                                       Name: Peggy T. d'Hemecourt
                                                                       Title: Vice President - Human Resources

                                                              EMPLOYEE


                                                              ------------------------------------
                                                              James T. Hackett`
# L_2007057EN.01002801.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 57/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 57/28

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 177/2007 of 22 February 2007 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 55 of 23 February 2007
  )

On page 16, in the Annex, second column under the Heading ‘Destination’, in all of the table:

for:

‘C13’,

read:

‘C10’.

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 6, 2009

p0203 

# Order

February 6, 2009

137652 & (53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137652 COA: 275215 Washtenaw CC: 05-001189-FH DAVID KIRCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to ap peal the August 14, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals

is considered. The Clerk of the Court is di rected to place this case on the April 2009 session calendar for argument on whether to grant the applica tion or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order addressing whether the plain language of MCL 324.3115(4) requires a determinate sentence of five years for posing a substantial endangerment to the public health, safety, or welfare, or whether the inclusion of that statute in MCL 777.13c, listing those feloni es to which the guidelines for minimum sentences apply, requires the imposition of an indeterminate sentence. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan ar e invited to file briefs amicus cu riae, to be filed no later than March 25, 2009. Other persons or groups interested in determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for pe rmission to file briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later than March 25, 2009.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Telos Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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 registrant and we have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
#### William G. ATHEY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Jeanne ATHEY, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 2D01-1583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2003.

Rehearing Denied April 28 and May 6, 2003.

Wesley Pardue of Knox & Givens, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Ralph P. Mangione of Williams, Schifino, Mangione & Steady, P.A., Tampa, for Ap-pellee/Cross-Appellant.

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

William G. Athey and Jeanne Athey both appeal the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in this case. We affirm that final judgment in all respects except for two minor issues.

First, for approximately seven months prior to the entry of the final judgment, the husband was the primary residential parent of the couple’s two children. For this period, June 10, 2000, to January 23, 2001, the husband requested an award of child support. It appears that the trial court reserved ruling on this request in a pretrial order entered on September 5, 2000. The issue simply was not addressed in the final judgment. The husband filed a timely motion for rehearing that raised numerous issues. He renewed his request for a decision as to this award of child support. The trial court denied the motion for rehearing without any explanation. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether the husband is entitled to an award of child support from the wife for this period and, if so, the amount of that award.

Second, the final judgment awarded the wife bridge-the-gap alimony. *See Borchard v. Borchard,*730 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The judgment requires the husband to make thirty-six *334monthly payments of $800. We conclude that the evidence in this case supports an award of such alimony. On the other hand, the trial court’s order does not characterize this award as permanent lump sum alimony, payable in installments. The order uses ambiguous language that seems to award bridge-the-gap alimony as either unauthorized rehabilitative alimony or unauthorized nonpermanent periodic alimony. The bridge-the-gap alimony recognized in *Borchard,*is lump sum alimony. For reasons both legal and practical, we continue to require that bridge-the-gap alimony be awarded as a form of permanent lump sum alimony that does not terminate upon the death of the payor or the remarriage of the payee. On remand, the trial court shall amend the award of alimony to specify that it is an award of $28,800 payable in thirty-six monthly payments of $800.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

COVINGTON, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.