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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS 

COMMAND, ABERDEEN PROVING 

GROUND, Aberdeen, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0949 

Issued: September 30, 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 June 6, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported May 24, 2022 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket 

No. 22-0949.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA).1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

days of the date appellant filed his appeal.2 As of the filing of the current appeal, the most recent 

OWCP decision was dated March 22, 2021. However, by a May 24, 2022 decision in Docket No.

21-0990, the Board affirmed OWCP’s March 22, 2021 decision, finding that it properly 

determined that appellant had abandoned his request for an oral hearing before a representative of 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 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

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of this appeal,4 over which the Board may properly exercise 

jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0949 must be dismissed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0949 is dismissed.

Issued: September 30, 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 Docket No. 21-0990 (issuedMay24, 2022).

4

Supra note 2.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21846]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuances

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as 
amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) 
and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of 
Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 License No.          Name/Address                 Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
017466N......  Compass Shipping, Inc.,    September 21, 2005.
                525 Empire Blvd.,
                Brooklyn, NY 11125.
283F.........  Saima Avendero USA, Inc.,  August 4, 2003.
                550 Broad Street, Suite
                1001, Newark, NJ 07102.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 05-21846 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### STATE v. GASTON

No. 79 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 575.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 10 July 1969.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41375

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

KYLE J. REID

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 582

Filed: June 23, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

T HIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for correction of illegal sentence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Kyle J. Reid pled guilty to felony injury to a child , Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1) . The district

court imposed a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years

, and retained jurisdiction. The district court ultimately relinquished jurisdiction. Reid fi led a

timely Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Reid

subsequently filed a second Rule 35 motion for correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal

manner, which the district court also denied. Reid appeals from the denial of his second Rule 35

motion.

Reid argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion for

correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner because the court did not conduct a hearing2 or otherwise give him an opp ortunity to respond to the addendum to the presentence

investigation report ( APSI ) . In his opening brief, Reid acknowledges that he did not have a due

process right to respond to the APSI. State v. Goodlett , 139 Idaho 262, 265, 77 P.3d 487 , 490

(Ct. App. 2003). He also acknowledges that there exists no constitutional requirement of a

hearing either at the correctional facility or in the trial court prior to the relinquishment of

jurisdiction. State v. Coassolo , 136 Idaho 138, 141, 30 P.3d 293 , 296 (2001 ). Reid nevertheless

maintains that the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing at which Reid would have had

an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in the APSI. Where the district court was not required

to hold a hearing or invite Reid’s re sponse to the APSI before relinquishing jurisdiction, Reid has

failed to establish that the court erred by not doing so.

Accordingly, Reid has failed to establish any error in the district court’s denial of his

Rule 35 motion. The order of the district co urt denying Reid’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Sample Policy Statement for Employment of Spouses of Protected Veterans

It is [Federal Contractor, Inc.’s] policy not to discriminate because of a person’s relationship or association with a protected veteran.  This includes spouses and other family members.  Also, [Federal Contractor, Inc.] will safeguard the fair and equitable treatment of protected veteran spouses and family members with regard to all employment actions and prohibit harassment of applicants and employees because of their relationship or association with a protected veteran.
#### STATE v. McILWAIN

No. 112 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 335,

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973.
#### STATE v. BRANDON

No. 136 PC and No. 50.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 483.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 31 August 1973.
Exhibit
32.2






Section 1350 Certification
of Principal Financial Officer







The
undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Quarterly
Report”) accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods presented as required by such
report. The foregoing certification is based upon, among other things, my
responsibilities as principal financial officer of the Company, my own due
diligence and representations made by certain other members of the Company’s
senior management.







Date:  February
20, 2009





/s/ Jeffrey D.
Gash


Jeffrey
D. Gash


Executive
Vice President, Finance and Secretary


(Principal
Financial Officer)
#### KING v. GRINDSTAFF

No. 66 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 613.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 1 June 1973.
*

 This opinion is being released initially in typescript form.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

 

Nos. 02-3914, 02-3915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

BDO SEIDMAN, regarding promoter

examination of BDO Seidman,

Respondent-Appellee.

APPEALS OF: JOHN DOE and

JANE DOE and RICHARD ROE and

MARY ROE,

Proposed Intervenors.

__________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 02 C 4822 – Milton I. Shadur, Judge.

__________

ON MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE

SEPTEMBER 25, 2003*

__________
Nos. 02-3914, 02-3915 Page 2

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge (in chambers). John and Jane Doe

and Richard and Mary Roe, appellants in this matter, have filed a

motion to stay issuance of the mandate of this court pending the

filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari. 

A movant seeking a stay of this court’s mandate pending the

filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari must demonstrate a

reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits and that the

movant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay. Nanda v. Board

of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 312 F.3d 852, 853 (7th Cir. 2002) (Ripple,

J., in chambers). To demonstrate a reasonable probability of

success on the merits, the movant must demonstrate a reasonable

probability that four Justices will vote to grant certiorari and a

reasonable possibility that five Justices will vote to reverse this

court’s judgment. Id. at 853-54. 

The appellants have not met their burden. First, from a

procedural perspective, the motion fails to certify that the

appellants in fact are filing a certiorari petition and fails to identify

any issues they will raise in the petition. See Practitioner’s

Handbook for Appeals, p.89 (2003) (requiring counsel to make such

a certification and identify the issues to be raised). More

significantly, the appellants’ 3-page motion states only that the

panel’s opinion “arguably is in conflict with prior opinions of this

circuit.” Motion at 3. Beyond this bare assertion, the motion

contains no argument about whether the Supreme Court is likely to

grant certiorari and to reverse the judgment of this court. As

demonstrated by the panel’s opinion, its holding does not conflict

with any Supreme Court authority or with any authority from other

circuits.

In short, the motion seems inadequate on its face. Because

the appellants have failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability

of success on the merits, the motion must be denied. 

MOTION TO STAY MANDATE DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5545 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5545

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2010

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Potomac River, 
Washington Channel, District of Columbia, under the jurisdiction of the 
                          Corps of Engineers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON CHANNEL, DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA.

    Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the following portion of 
the project for navigation, Potomac River, Washington Channel, District 
of Columbia, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 
Stat. 1028) is deauthorized: Beginning at Washington Harbor Channel 
Geometry Centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship 
channel, Centerline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441948.20, 
East 1303969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey 
Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, 
Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the United States Army 
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the 
aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses and 
distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a 
point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide channel thence binding on 
said outline the following three courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 
49 minutes 15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 
degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 
11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; S. 
78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a point binding on 
the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational channel at 
computed Centerline Station No. 65+54.31, coordinates North 
438923.9874, East 1306159.9738, thence; continuing with the 
aforementioned centerline the following courses and distances: N. 11 
degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline 
Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 
2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, thence; N. 
49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet to the point of 
beginning, such area in total containing a computed area of 777,284 
square feet or 17.84399 acres of riparian water way.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed 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 is being prepared;b)
    
    [paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions set forth
in SEC Release No. 34-47986]c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter 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
  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 to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 15, 2005
    
    /s/ Kerry A. ShibaKerry A. Shiba
Chief Financial Officer
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT


          This Indemnification Agreement is entered into this 17th day of
March, 1997, by and between Lyric Energy, Inc., a Colorado corporation
("Lyric") and Stahl Petroleum Company, a Texas corporation ("SPC").

          For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

          1.   SPC shall indemnify and hold Lyric harmless from, against and
in respect to (and shall on demand reimburse Lyric for) any and all damages,
losses, obligations, liabilities, claims, encumbrances, liens, deficiencies,
costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees
and other costs and expenses incident to any suit, action, investigation,
claim or proceeding) suffered, sustained, incurred or required to be paid by
Lyric arising from or in any way relating to the civil action entitled Crouch
Enterprises, Inc. vs. G.E. Stahl, et al., Case No.78,460-A, in the 47th
District Court of Potter County, Texas and any and all collateral or
subsequent suits, actions, claims or proceedings relating to the subject
matter of such civil action.

          2.   Lyric shall promptly notify SPC in writing of any claim which
is subject to the indemnification set forth in the foregoing paragraph. 

          3.   SPC shall be required to control the defense of any such claims
and all related settlement negotiations and Lyric agrees to fully cooperate
with SPC therein.

          4.   This Indemnification Agreement shall be effective upon the
conversion of the Restated Convertible Promissory Note of Lyric dated as of
February 4, 1997 and shall be of no force or effect unless and until such
conversion occurs.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Indemnification
Agreement as of the date first above written.


STAHL PETROLEUM                    LYRIC ENERGY, INC., a Colorado
CORPORATION, a Texas corporation   corporation


By:      /s/ G.E. Stahl            By:       /s/ G.E. Stahl      
         G.E. Stahl, President              G.E. Stahl, President
#### STATE v. REEVES

No. 112 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 334.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 31 January 1977.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Gregory F. Ehlinger, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Irwin FinancialCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
          c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.    /s/ Gregory F. Ehlinger   GREGORY F. EHLINGER Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer   Date: May 3, 2004
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.24

CERTIFIED GROCERS OF CALIFORNIA, LTD. SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM INCENTIVE PLAN

Members of the Senior Management Team at Certified Grocers of California, LTD. 
participate in an annual incentive plan designed to reward for the overall 
financial performance of the Cooperative. The performance criteria are 
established annually by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cooperative and 
approved by the Compensation Committee.

The target incentive amount is expressed as a percentage of salary, varying by 
the individual's position in the Cooperative as indicated below:

     - Senior Vice Presidents                  25% of base salary
     
     - Vice Presidents & General Managers      20% of base salary

The participants have the opportunity to earn up to two times the targeted 
incentive through superior performance of the cooperative. For 1997, the 
performance criteria included pre patronage dividends and revenue growth. A 
matrix was established which rewarded participants with target incentive levels 
for achieving the planned pre patronage dividend and a specified revenue growth.
The targeted payment increases with performance above the specified levels, and 
decreases with performance below those levels. If the cooperative performance is
below 80% of expected levels, no incentive is earned.

The Chief Executive Officer has the discretionary anthority to raise or lower 
the award dependent upon individual contributions to the overall performance of 
the Cooperative to a maximum of 25% of the earned incentive.