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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Rockwood, TN, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0920

Issued: September 6, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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 May 31, 2022, appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 17, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0920.

In a letter dated and received August 19, 2022, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request f or the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

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 approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0920 is dismissed.2

Issued: September 6, 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

2 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 Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA 

MEDICAL CENTER, Augusta, ME, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0230

Issued: December 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 24, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an April 13, 2021 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0230.

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 April 13, 2021 decision was October 10, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 24, 2021, more than 180 days after the

April 13, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0230 is 

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

1

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

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

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

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0230 is dismissed.

Issued: December 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
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 Annual Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hyrum A. Mead, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)  the Report fully complies with the 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 Company.



/s/ Hyrum A. Mead
-----------------
Hyrum A. Mead
President and CEO (principal executive officer)
November 29, 2005
# L_2007001EN.01000301.xml

| 4.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 1/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 1/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2/2007

of 3 January 2007

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (tomatoes and table grapes)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

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

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

Whereas:

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

(1)

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

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

(2)

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

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for tomatoes and table grapes after 3 January 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for tomatoes and table grapes after 3 January 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for tomatoes and table grapes submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1510/2006, export declarations for which are accepted after 3 January and before 1 March 2007, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 January 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 January 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

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

1

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

2

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

3

---
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1193 Lower Tribunal No. 18-26845

________________ 

### Judy Bell , Appellant,
vs. 

### Florida Gaming Casino Inc., etc. ,

Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael Barket, Judge. Judy Bell, in proper person. Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A., and Pamela A. Chamberlin, for appellee Florida Gaming Centers, Inc. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### Donald Fiddelman *v.*Popcorn Redmon

*Richard L. Albrecht,*in support of the petition.

Decided June 24, 1993

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 201 (AC 10798), is denied.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

August 13 , 2020.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 000 60

- CR

IN RE ROY E. ADDICKS JUNIOR , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 801,83 5



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 23, 2020, relator Roy E. Addicks Junior 1 filed a petition for writ
of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the presiding judge of the 183rd District Court of Harris County
, to rule on various motions which relator alleges he has filed

.

1 Our court previously affirmed relator’s conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child See Addicks v. State , 15 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd)

.2

As the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish relator’s right to mandamus relief. See Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (petition must contain “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”) ; and Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”)

. “Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus mu st follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le , 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). While we agr ee with r elator that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 allows us to suspend some of the requirements of Rule 52 upon a showing of good cause, r elator has not provided this court with any record, much less one showing that he is entitled to
mandamus relie f.
Additionally, Judge Vanessa Velasquez is no longer the presiding judge of
the court in which r elator was convicted; therefore, even if we had received the record, we would be required to abate this proceeding for a response from the current sitting ju dge. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b). We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

WILLIAM BEAUMONT ARMY MEDICAL 

CENTER, El Paso, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1288

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 September 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 19, 2022 merit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1288.

In a letter dated October 18, 2022 and received on December 23, 2022, appellant 

requested that the appeal be withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-1288 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAN TU TRINH,

Petitioner

v.

KATHLEEN TRINH & LT 

INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY SCHOOL 

INC.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 585 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, 

Petition for Leave to File Response, and Petition for Leave to Amended Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1609-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-1609-DR), dated October 24, 2005, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

Effective: October 26, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 24, 2005:

Glades, Hendry, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 05-22006 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<PAGE>

       [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM ENGINEERS LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K of our reserve report dated September 25, 1997 relating to 
the oil and gas reserves of Bellwether Exploration Company at July 1, 1997.  We 
also consent to the references to us under the heading "Supplemental 
Information" in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Bellwether
Exploration Company in such report.

                                            /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                                PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
                                            ___________________________________
                                            RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                            PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Houston, Texas
September 25, 1997
The H onorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Nebraska.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1518

___________ Consuelo Watson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. First National Bankcard Center, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 29, 1998 Filed: July 6, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Consuelo Watson appeals from the district court & s entry of summary judgment 1 in favor of defendant in her action alleging retaliation under Title VII o f the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. After carefully reviewing the re cordand the parties & submissions on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the distric t court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Watson & s pending motion.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Vertex Energy, Inc. 8-K


Exhibit 10.4 


 





SECOND
AMENDMENT TO 

PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (the “Second Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of this
25th day of February, 2022, by and between Vertex Energy Operating, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“Vertex”),
and HPRM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“HPRM”).


 


W
I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS,
HPRM and Vertex entered into that certain Promissory Note dated July 1, 2021, reference to which is hereby made for all purposes
(the “Original Note”); and


 


WHEREAS,
VERTEX and HPRM entered into that certain First Amendment to Promissory Note dated October 11, 2021 (the “First Amendment”);
and


 


WHEREAS,
Vertex and HPRM desire to further amend the Original Note (as amended by the First Amendment, the “Note”) to extend
the maturity date as provided for herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed as
follows:


 


1.     
Amendment of Section 2. Section 2 of the Note is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


Due
Date. The principal amount of this Note together with accrued interest (the sum of such principal and accrued interest being hereinafter
referred to as the “Amount Due”) shall be due on or before the earlier of (the “Due Date”): (i) June 30,
2022; and (ii) five (5) calendar days following the closing of a sale of substantially all the assets of Vertex Refining OH, LLC
(“VROH”), and/or the sale of membership interests in VROH possessing voting control (with the consent of Vertex).
This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without premium or penalty and without the consent of the Lender.


 


2.     
Continuation of Note. Except as amended hereby, the Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.     
Execution in Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties
hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which
taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Signatures delivered by facsimile or via e-mail in portable document
format (“pdf”) shall be binding for all purposes hereof. Section headings are intended for convenience of reference
only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this instrument.


 


[Signature
pages follow.]





 




    1 


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 





	 	VERTEX:
	 	 	 
	 	VERTEX ENERGY OPERATING LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	  






	 	Print Name:	Ben
Cowart






	 	Title:	CEO



  




     


     


    

 





	 	HPRM:
	 	 	 
	 	HPRM LLC
	 	Tensile-Heartland
                    Acquisition Corporation


Its: Managing
Member



	 	 	 
	 	By:	






	 		Douglas J. Dossey
	 	Its:	Authorized Representative
# C_2007125EN.01000201.xml

| 6.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4642 — 3i Group/Euro Druckservice)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 125/03)

On 29 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 32007M4642. 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 32007M4642. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---