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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE, 

Alexandria, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0063

Issued: November 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 31, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a May 19, 2016 merit decision of the 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 24-0063.

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 May 19, 2016 decision was November 15, 2016. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until October 31, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the May 19, 2016 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 24-0063 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. 24-0063, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0063 is dismissed.

Issued: November 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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).
#### National Bank of Clinton *vs.*Edward Taylor & others.

Suffolk.

March 28. — 30, 1876.

Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.

Upon the filing by the defendant in an action of contract, after his default and before judgment, of a copy of the adjudication of his bankruptcy in the United States District Court, he is entitled to have the case continued to await the determination of that court upon the question of his *discharge;*and, upon filing his certificate oi discharge, to have judgment rendered in his favor.

Contract against the maker and indorsers upon a negotiable promissory note, made by the defendant Taylor, payable to the other defendants., and by them indorsed to the plaintiff. On June 15, 1874, at a calling of the docket, in the Superior Court, the court ordered the action to be placed on the short list for trial, on June 22, 1874; and on that day the defendants were all defaulted. The same day, the defendant Taylor was adudged a bankrupt by the United States District Court for the district of Massachusetts, and on the same day, but after the default was entered, the defendant Taylor filed in this case a copy of the adjudication in bankruptcy and a motion for a continu*125anc e of the case, to await the result of the bankruptcy proceedings. No objection was made to judgment against the other defendants. The motion to continue was opposed by the plaintiff, but the presiding judge ruled that the court had no discretion, but was required by the bankrupt act to continue the case, bankruptcy having been suggested in proper form before final judgment, and ordered the case to be continued. To this ruling the plaintiff excepted.

On September 20,1875, the defendant Taylor received his discharge in bankruptcy, discharging him from all debts provable against Ms estate which existed June 22,1874, and tMs discharge was pleaded in tMs case on September 21, 1874.

The plaintiff moved for judgment against all the defendants on the default. Taylor moved that judgment be entered in Ms favor, without costs, by reason of his discharge in bankruptcy. Colburn, J., ruled that, the case having been continued to await the result of the bankruptcy proceedings, and Taylor having obtained and pleaded his discharge, the court had no discretion in the matter, and ordered judgment for the defendant Taylor, without costs, by reason of his discharge in bankruptcy, and against the other defendants; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

6r. *W.*Morse, for the plaintiff.

*P. A. Collins*Cr. *A. Criffin,*for Taylor, were not called upon.

Gray, C. J.

The defendant Taylor having been adjudged a bankrupt in the District Court of the United States, and having filed a copy of such adjudication before judgment against Mm in this action, the case was rightly continued, upon Ms motion, to await the determination of that court upon the question of his discharge. *Ray*v. Wight, 119 Mass. 426. Having afterwards obtained Ms discharge in bankruptcy,, and produced a certificate thereof, judgment was rightly rendered in Ms favor. *Lewis*v. Shattuck, 4 Gray, 572. *Carpenter*v. Turrell, 100 Mass. 450.

*Exceptions overruled*
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

Worcester, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1219

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 1, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a February 26, 2014 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1219.

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 February 26, 2014 decision was August 25, 2014. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until August 1, 2022, more than 180 days after the

February 26, 2014 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1219 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 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

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. 22-1219, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1219 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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JOSTENS,
INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTH
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         (5,563)
<SECURITIES>                                     5,985
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,020)
<INVENTORY>                                    116,596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               265,164
<PP&E>                                         201,427
<DEPRECIATION>                               (128,901)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 412,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,828
<BONDS>                                          3,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,864
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   412,485
<SALES>                                        263,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,533
<CGS>                                          119,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               116,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,486
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 22, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0098. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al. v. ESTATE OF SUSIE ANN AMIN BY 

EXECUTOR DAA’OOD RASHEED AMIN, SR. et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

19V1210
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John B. Wood, 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure 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 isbeing prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                                WASHINGTON, D.C.

                                   FORM 10-Q
                                QUARTERLY REPORT

Under Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                             FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED

                               September 30, 1996

                            Commission File:  0-3216

                   INVESTORS HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
               (Exact name of registrant as specified in Charter)

                                    KENTUCKY
         (State of Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)

                                   61-0574893
                      (IRS Employer Identification Number

                       200 Capital Avenue, P. O. Box 717
                           Frankfort, Kentucky  40602
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)

                 Registrant's Telephone Number - (502) 223-2361

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 13(g) of the Act:

                 Common Capital Stock par value $1.00 per share
                 
                 
                                (Title of Class)

        Number of outstanding shares as of September 30, 1996 - 898,470

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days Yes X    No




                          PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1.  Legal Proceedings.

There are no legal proceedings to which the Registrant is a party  which are
material to the overall financial condition or the results of operations of
the Company.

ITEM 2.  Changes in Securities.

Not Applicable.

ITEM 3.  Defaults Upon Senior Securities.

Not Applicable.

ITEM 4.  Submission of matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

None.
                 
ITEM  5.  Other Information.

On August 15, 1996, the Board of Directors of Investors Heritage Life
Insurance Company eleted Gordon Duke to complete the unexpired term of Joe R.
Johnson, who deceased July 17, 1997.

ITEM 6.  Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K.

(b)  There were no reports filed on Form 8-K during the quarter ended 9/30/96.

(c)  Exhibit 27 - Financial Data Schedule.

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

INVESTORS HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
/S/
BY:  HARRY LEE WATERFIELD II
PRESIDENT
DATE:  NOVEMBER 5, 1996

/S/
BY:  JIMMY R. MCIVER
TREASURER
DATE:  NOVEMBER 5, 1996
|     |                                                                                                                         |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|     |                                                                                                                                                      |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |  |
| Date: August 1, 2016 | By | /s/ Abu M. Arif |
|                      |   | Abu M. Arif |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                      |   |   |
| Date: August 1, 2016 | By | /s/ Janet C. Langner |
|                      |   | Janet C. Langner |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                      |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
# C_2007267EN.01000101.xml

| 9.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4850 — CVC/DSI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 267/01)

On 25 September 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 32007M4850. 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 32007M4850. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22162]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 3


Consent Agreement Settlements; Corrections

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission published a document in the 
Federal Register on April 3, 2001 (66 FR 17622), that, inter alia, 
revised Sec.  3.25(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice by adding a 
new sentence, and by adding a new clause to an existing sentence, and 
made those revisions effective on May 18, 2001. The Commission 
subsequently published a document in the Federal Register on December 
12, 2001 (66 FR 64142), that, inter alia, further revised Sec.  
3.25(c), and made those revisions effective on December 12, 2001. 
Inadvertently, however, the December 12, 2001 document did not include 
in its depiction of Sec.  3.25(c), as revised, the new sentence and new 
clause added by the April 3, 2001 document. This document corrects 
Sec.  3.25(c) by re-adding the new sentence and the new clause 
originally added by the April 3, 2001 document.

DATES: Effective on May 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald S. Clark, Secretary of the 
Commission, at (202) 326-2514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the FTC's Erratum.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal Access to 
Justice, Lawyers.

0
Accordingly, 16 CFR part 3 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 3--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 3 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise Sec.  3.25(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  3.25  Consent agreement settlements.

* * * * *
    (c) If the proposed consent agreement accompanying the motion has 
also been executed by complaint counsel and approved by the appropriate 
Bureau Director, and the matter is still pending before an 
Administrative Law Judge, the Secretary shall issue an order 
withdrawing from adjudication those portions of the matter that the 
proposal would resolve and all proceedings before the Administrative 
Law Judge shall be stayed with respect to such portions, pending a 
determination by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (f) of this 
section. If the matter is pending before the Commission, the Commission 
in its discretion may, on motion, issue an order withdrawing from 
adjudication those portions of the matter that a proposed consent 
agreement would resolve for the purpose of considering the proposed 
consent agreement.
* * * * *

Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22162 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P