alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007105EN.01000101.xml

| 9.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4630 — Bear Stearns/Nylstar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 105/01)

On 2 May 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4630. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4630. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,

Port Huron, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0734

Issued: June 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 April 25, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a September 16, 2022 nonmerit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0734.

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 (FECA).

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 September 16, 2022 decision was March 15, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until April 25, 2023, more than 180 days after the

September 16, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0734 is 

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

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained his 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. 23-0734, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0734 is dismissed.

Issued: June 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).
#### WILBUR GEORGE HENRY, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10398

January 26, 1978

573 P.2d 671

*Jeffrey D. Sobel,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *L. J. O’Neale,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*47OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Pursuant to a True Bill Returned by the Clark County Grand Jury, Wilbur George Henry was charged, by indictment, with the felonious possession of stolen property (NRS 205.275). A pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus contended, *inter alia,*the “admissible” evidence which the prosecuting attorney had presented to the grand jury did not establish that Henry had probably committed the charged offense. Habeas was denied and in this appeal the same contention is reasserted.

At the grand jury proceedings, an employee of a car rental agency testified that a 1977 white Chevrolet Nova automobile had been rented to Michael J. Woodwyk. Mr. Woodwyk testified that he had rented such an automobile and left it in the care of a hotel bell captain or carhop. He also testified that he called for the car several hours later and was advised that it could not be found.

Other evidence came from an undercover Las Vegas Police Officer who narrated that a 1977 white Chevrolet Nova automobile had been purchased from one Morale, for $300. The undercover agent also testifird that Henry and Morale participated in the price negotiations and that Henry was present when Morale received the $300.

Henry’s central claim of error is that the undercover agent could not specifically identify the vehicle license number without referring to a written report prepared by another police officer in Henry’s presence. Even if we concede the merit of this claim and disregard such testimony, in our view the other recited evidence is sufficient to meet the probable cause standard delineated in NRS 172.155, and the presence, companionship and conduct criteria specified in Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969).

“[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 327, 512 P.2d 774, 775 (1973). Other issues do not warrant comment. Accordingly, we affirm.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 06-04]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

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

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 06-04 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: October 31, 2005.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 67151)          ( print page 67152)          ( print page 67153)          ( print page 67154)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 05-22028 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 1982

CEDAR COAL COMPANY

,

Petitioner

- Appellant

,

v.

PEARL M. BARTON, survivor of CLARENCE E. BARTON; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

,

Respondents

- Appellees

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board . ( 16

- 0558 BLA )

Submitted : April 26, 2018 Decided: May 3, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mark J. Grigoraci, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Samuel B. Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, Charleston, West Virginia; Nicholas C. Geale, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Rita A. Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM:

Cedar Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and

order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to

30 U.S.C. §§ 901

- 944 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s

decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Cedar Coal Co. v.

Barton , No. 16

- 0558 BLA (B.R.B. June 27 , 2017) . We dispense with oral argume nt

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000638

02-JUL-2015

10:04 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,656
<PP&E>                                          98,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,474
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,225
<SALES>                                         56,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,928
<CGS>                                           40,838
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (97)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,386
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,336
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document









MEMORANDUM


TO:    J.D. Crowley


FROM:    Andrew Sutor [Sign or Initial Here]
    
DATE:    December 14, 2021


RE:    First Amendment to Employment Agreement




    This memorandum (“First Amendment”) will confirm our agreement to amend and modify the terms of your Employment Agreement, dated March 4, 2020 (the “Agreement”), between Audacy Operations, Inc. (f/k/a “Entercom Operations, Inc.”) (the “Company”) and you, J.D. Crowley (the “Employee”).
    1.    Amendments
1.1The Agreement is modified to reflect that references to “Entercom” or “the Company” are defined to refer to Audacy Operations, Inc., unless otherwise specified.
1.2Paragraph 1(d) of the Agreement (entitled “Duties”) is hereby amended to reflect that Employee’s title shall be Executive Vice President - Chief Digital Officer.
1.3Paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement (entitled “Salary”) is hereby amended to reflect that, the Company will pay Employee, on a bi-weekly basis, or such other basis that the Company may advise Employee in writing, a salary at an annualized rate of $700,000.00 retroactive to June 1, 2021 and through March 31, 2023.
1.4Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement (entitled “Incentive Compensation”) is hereby amended to reflect that, commencing with calendar year 2021 (i.e., payable in 2022 based on performance in 2021), Employee will be eligible to receive an Annual Incentive Bonus with a target of amount of $400,000.
1.5Paragraph 2(d) of the Agreement (entitled “Future Grants of Time Vesting Equity”) is hereby amended to reflect that, commencing in 2022, Employee will be eligible for an annual equity grant with an aggregate target amount of $350,000, or such other amount as determined by the Compensation Committee.
2.    Effect of Amendment.  All terms and provisions of the Agreement not expressly modified herein shall remain in full force and effect and are binding on the Employee and the Company.


    Please countersign this memorandum to confirm your acceptance of these terms and return it to me.


ACCEPTED & AGREED TO:




By:        /J.D. Crowley/                    
    J.D. Crowley


Dated:        12/14/2021                    
Page 1 of 1
AUD 129028
```

                                                                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                                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  Navistar   Financial   Corporation   (the
"Corporation"),  subsidiary of International  Truck and Engine  Corporation,  on Form 10-Q for
the period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the
date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Andrew J.  Cederoth,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the
Corporation,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  § 1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Corporation.

/s/ Andrew J. Cederoth
Andrew J. Cederoth
    Principal Financial Officer
    September 12, 2003

This  certification  accompanies  the Report  pursuant to § 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002 and shall not be deemed  filed by the  Corporation  for  purposes  of  Section  18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

        A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 has been provided
        to  Navistar  Financial  Corporation  and  will  be  retained  by  Navistar  Financial
        Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
        request.
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7122

CHARLES SMITH,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in 06-0348, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his

appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAY - 8 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk umildistri

cc:	Kenneth M. Carpenter, Esq.

Scott D. Austin, Esq.

s8

MAY - 8 2009

MAY F 8 2009

JAN HORbita

CLERK

ISSUED AS A MANDATE:
February 25, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SANTANA MATA OLGUIN, Appellant

NO. 14-13-01023-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Opinion issued January 28, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00301-CV

———————————

KENDALL SHIVE, Appellant

V.

SHIRLEY T. STINSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 335th District Court

Bastrop County, Texas1

Trial Court Case No. 499-335

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas 

transferred this appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 20–9048 (Tex. 

Mar. 31, 2020); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of 

cases).
2

On March 17, 2020, appellant, Kendall Shive, filed a notice of appeal of the 

trial court’s December 18, 2019 order granting appellee, Shirley T. Stinson,

summary judgment. On July 7, 2020, this appeal was abated, at appellant’s request,

to allow the parties an opportunity to finalize the terms of a settlement agreement. 

The parties, representing that they have reached such an agreement, have filed 

a joint motion to reinstate the appeal and for disposition in accordance with the terms 

of the agreement. The motion requests that we reinstate the appeal, vacate the trial 

court’s December 18, 2019 order, dismiss the case in its entirety, order that all costs

on appeal be taxed against the parties who incurred the same, and order that this 

Court’s mandate issue immediately. No opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(c).

Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion, reinstate the appeal, vacate the trial 

court’s December 18, 2019 order, and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e); see e.g., Jester Venture Ltd. v. Nash, No. 01-06-00512-CV, 

2006 WL 2042358, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 17, 2006, no pet.) 

(mem. op.) (vacating trial court’s judgment and dismissing case on parties’ agreed 

motion). We direct the Clerk of this Court that costs are to be taxed against the party 

who incurred the same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). We further direct the Clerk of 

this Court to issue the mandate immediately. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). We 

dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Countiss, and Farris.
Exhibit (99.5)

         Written Statement of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

       Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light
Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2002 (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/  Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
-------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
August 9, 2002
# C_2007176EN.01000301.xml

| 28.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 23 July 2007

appointing Maltese members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers

(2007/C 176/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1), and in particular Article 82 thereof,

1

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | in its Decision of 22 March 2007 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period 22 March 2007 to 21 March 2009, except for the Maltese members and alternate members. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in its Decision of 22 March 2007 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period 22 March 2007 to 21 March 2009, except for the Maltese members and alternate members.

2

| (2) | the Maltese members and alternate members should be appointed to fill the vacant seats, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the Maltese members and alternate members should be appointed to fill the vacant seats,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period up to 21 March 2009:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- |
| Mr Frank MICALLEF | Mr Mark MUSU' |
| Ms Shirley SULTANA | |

Members

Alternates

Mr Frank MICALLEF

Mr Mark MUSU'

Ms Shirley SULTANA

II.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

| Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- |
| Ms Margaret MAGRIN | Mr Kevin BONELLO |
| Mr John BENCINI | |

Members

Alternates

Ms Margaret MAGRIN

Mr Kevin BONELLO

Mr John BENCINI

III.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

| Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- |
| Mr Tonio FARRUGIA | Mr Emanuel SAID |
| Mr Lawrence MIZZI | |

Members

Alternates

Mr Tonio FARRUGIA

Mr Emanuel SAID

Mr Lawrence MIZZI

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2007.

For the Council

The President

L. AMADO

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 392, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 92, 27.4.2007, p. 7.

2

---