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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

SUPPLY STATION, Oakland, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1205

Issued: April 5, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie N. Leet, Esq., for the appellant1

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 May 14, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 10, 2020 merit decision 

and an April 20, 2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

(OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1224.

On May 27, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a second appeal from the same

January 10, 2020 OWCP merit decision. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned 

Docket No. 20-1205.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, since there are now two 

docket numbers assigned for a review of the same OWCP decision, one of the docket numbers 

must be dismissed. Since the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 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 also 18 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

20-1205 to appellant’s second appeal request, this docket number shall be dismissed. The appeal 

docketed as No. 20-1224 will go forward. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 20-1205 is dismissed.

Issued: April 5, 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
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21995]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel, Interventions and Practice Research Infrastructure 
Program.
    Date: November 21, 2005.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, 
Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#721301111a071e0617321f131b1e5c1c1b1a5c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89e8faeae1fce5fdecc9e4e8e0e5a7e7e0e1a7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 28, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21995 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22449]
RIN 2120-AI16

Flightdeck Door Monitoring and Crew Discreet Alerting Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2005, regarding 
flightdeck door monitoring and crew discreet alerting systems. This 
correction adds two vendors that sell video camera systems to the ones 
cited in the preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen A. Mattes, Office of Aviation 
Policy and Plans, telephone; (202) 267-3412.

Correction

    In the proposed rule FR Doc. 05-18806 published on September 21, 
2005, (70 FR 55492) make the following correction:
    1. On page 55495 for the proposed rule, in the second column, 
fourth paragraph, replace the contents of the paragraph with the 
following:
    ``Certificate holders that choose to install a video camera system 
to comply with this rule, would incur the following costs. Some 
turbojets would need a two- or three-camera system while regional jets, 
including turbojets and turboprops, would need a one-camera system. 
AirWorks, AEI/AD Aerospace, Bournemouth Aviation Ltd., Goodrich, and 
Hollingsead International are the only vendors currently supplying 
these systems for airplanes. Many of their systems have Supplemental 
Type Certificates (STCs) issued by the FAA. These vendors are selling 
their systems to several European and Asian airlines as a result of 
United Kingdom (UK) Department for Transport Directive 21(a), issued on 
January 27, 2003, which strictly follows the ICAO requirements 
including the November 1, 2003 deadline. Thus, the FAA bases its 
estimated average costs on the vendors' reported costs.''

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 25, 2005.
Anthony F. Fazio,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-21747 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### Anthony C. KENNEY, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 04-1003.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 2, 2005.

Decided Feb. 7, 2005.

Anthony C. Kenney, Little Rock, AR, pro se.

Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Roberta G. Bowie, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Kenney (Kenney) appeals the *84district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find the administrative law judge correctly denied benefits because substantial evidence demonstrates Kenney had not ceased to engage in substantial gainful activity for any continuous 12-month period. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (individual is disabled for purposes of supplemental security income if he is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for continuous period of at least 12 months); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b) (2004) (claimant is not disabled if he is engaged in substantial gainful activity).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### Tariq AHMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stewart ANDREE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-16361.

D.C. No. CV-02-00364-HDM/RAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

Tariq Ahmad, Reno, NV, pro se.

*888Michael Navratil, John H. Cotton, John H. Cotton *&*Associates, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, Eugene J. Wait, Jr., Esq., Wait Law Firm, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tariq Ahmad appeals pro se the district court’s order construing Ahmad’s “motion to set trial date” as a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s earlier order granting summary judgment to defendants on Ahmad’s action alleging defamation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *United States v. City of Tacoma,*332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ahmad’s defamation claims because the alleged defamatory statements were subject to the absolute immunity given to judicial proceedings. *See K-Mart Corp. v. Washington,*109 Nev. 1180, 866 P.2d 274, 281 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MCGUIRE PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC., Respondent. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, v. McGuire Plumbing And Heating, Inc., Petitioner.

Nos. 04-1924, 04-2114.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.

Decided Jan. 19, 2005.

Robert J. Englehart, Howard E. Perl-stein, David Seid, Aileen A. Armstrong, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Petitioner and Respondent.

Donald W. Jones, Hulston *&*Jones, Springfield, MO, for Respondent and Petitioner.

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) found McGuire Plumbing & Heating, Inc. unlawfully refused to hire two union members, Dale Hankins and Robert Vance. McGuire was ordered to take affirmative action to make Hankins and Vance whole for any loss of earnings. McGuire Plumbing did not file any exceptions with the Board, the Board summarily adopted the ALJ’s decision, and we summarily entered a judgment enforcing the Board’s order. A dispute about the amount of backpay arose. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined the applicable back pay period, the hours Hankins and Vance would have worked, and their wage rates. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision. McGuire now petitions for review and the NLRB seeks enforcement.

McGuire raises eight arguments challenging the back pay orders. McGuire’s arguments are not properly before us. McGuire Plumbing’s claim that the company would not have hired Vance was resolved against the company in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding and cannot be relitigated in this compliance proceeding. *NLRB v. Laredo Packing Co.,*730 F.2d 405, 407 (8th Cir.1984). McGuire Plumbing did not raise most of its remaining arguments in exceptions before the Board and offers no extraordinary reasons for failing to do so. Thus, we lack *82jurisdiction to consider them. *Cobb Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. NLRB,*295 F.3d 1370, 1377 (D.C.Cir.2002). McGuire Plumbing raised one issue in exceptions to the Board that was not decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding: that backpay was excessive because the back-pay period failed to account for the company’s typical employment cycle and normal pattern of employee hires, discharges, and involuntary terminations. The Board considered the issue and resolved it against the company. Because McGuire Plumbing did not raise the issue in its opening brief, we decline to consider it. *See United States v. Brown,*108 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir.1997).

We thus deny the petition for review and enforce the Board’s backpay order.
<PAGE>

                                                       Exhibit 21
                          The Advest Group, Inc.
                                     
                           List of Subsidiaries

                                     Jurisdiction      Present
   Name                           Where Incorporated    Ownership

Advest, Inc.                      Delaware                   100%
   Advest Insurance Agency, Inc.  Massachusetts              100%
   Balanced Capital Services, Inc.                    Connecticut     100%

Advest Bank and Trust Company     Connecticut                100%
   A.B. Realty Corp.              Connecticut                100%

Advest Capital, Inc.              Connecticut                100%

Advest Properties, Inc.           Delaware                   100%

Advest Transfer Services, Inc.    Delaware                   100%

Bank Street Management Company    Connecticut                100%

Billings & Company, Inc.          Connecticut                100%
   Billings Management Co.        Connecticut                100%

Boston Security Counsellors, Inc. Massachusetts              100%

The Hannah Consulting Group, Inc. Connecticut                100%

Vercoe Insurance Agency, Inc.     Ohio                       100%








                                   -95-
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of O.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hickory, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1149

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel F. Read, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition for services performed before the Board in 

the amount of $600.00.1 The Board notes that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’

services are considered under the Board’s statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgment by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of $600.00.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and the implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review 

each fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id.
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $600.00.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BERKELEY 

DETACHED DEL UNIT POST OFFICE,

Berkeley, CA, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1400

Issued: February 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 21, 2020 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 20, 2020

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1400.

In a letter dated and received January 15, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for 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 claim for a fee for 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 also 18 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. 20-1400 is dismissed.

Issued: February 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Saed Mohseni, ChiefExecutive Officer, in connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick &Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 24,2005 (the “Report”), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and

 

2.           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of McCormick &Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc.

 
|   | /s/ SAED MOHSENI         |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Saed Mohseni             |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

Dated:  October 25,2005

 

----
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of Furniture Brands International, Inc.(the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, W. G. Holliman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the
Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ W. G. Holliman, Jr.             
| | ------------------------------------
| | W. G. Holliman                      
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer      
| | Furniture Brands International, Inc.
| | May 10, 2005
# L_2007090EN.01004401.xml

| 30.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 90/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/44

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 352/2007

of 29 March 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 38/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 28 March 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 28 March 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 28 March 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 shall be 363,50 EUR/tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 March 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 March 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1585/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 19).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 11, 18.1.2007, p. 4.

2

---