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

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SPOKANE 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Spokane, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1126

Issued: January 3, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 28, 2023 appellant sought an appeal from a purported final adverse March 1, 

2023 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1126.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal

over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction.

3

 The March 1, 2023 OWCP decision 

was not a final adverse decision as OWCP vacated an October 13, 2022 decision, which reduced 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation, effective September 2, 2022. It also expanded the acceptance 

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), which provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from 

the date of issuance of a decision of OWCP.”

3

Id. 
2

of appellant’s claim to include cervical radiculopathy. As there is no final adverse decision issued 

by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the 

appeal docketed as No. 23-1126 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-1126 is dismissed.

Issued: January 3, 2024

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER,  No. 10-56529

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.

v. 3:09-cv-00605-

BEN-NLS KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of  Southern District of Health and Human Services,

California, Defendant-Appellee.

San Diego

ORDER 

Filed March 14, 2012

Before: Harry Pregerson, Ronald M. Gould, and

Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The panel invites amicus briefs addressing the following

questions:

(1) Do the regulations at 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.926(l) and

405.980(a)(5) bar administrative review of a contractor’s decision to reopen a Medicare claim, including

the contractor’s compliance with the good cause

standard for reopening set forth at 42 C.F.R.

§§ 405.980(b)(2) and 405.986?

(2) If the regulations bar administrative review of a

contractor’s decision to reopen, do federal courts

have jurisdiction to enforce the agency’s compliance

with the good cause standard for reopening?

2973
Any person or entity wishing to file a brief as an amicus

curiae in response to this order is granted leave to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a). Briefs

responding to this order shall be filed within 30 days of the

date of this order and shall not exceed 15 pages.

2974 PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER v. SEBELIUS
Order filed July 13, 2017 Withdrawn, Appeals Reinstated and Order filed August

8 , 2017 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 17
- 00415
- CR NO. 14
- 17
- 00416
- CR

____________ EX PARTE CLINTON ONY EAHIALAM , Appellant
On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1450411
- A & 1450412
- A



### ORDER
On July 13, 2017 , this c ourt issued an order abating the appeal and directing the trial co urt to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal

. On August 2, 2017, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal because he has paid for the court reporter’s record. The motion is granted. Our order of July 13, 2017 , is withdrawn. The appeal is reinstated. The reporter’s reco rd is due August 30, 2017

. PER CURIAM
# L_2007201EN.01001501.xml

| 2.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 201/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/15

---

ADDENDUM

to Council Decision 2007/543/EC of 23 July 2007 concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)

(Official Journal of the European Union L 200 of 1 August 2007)

The following declarations are added to the Decision:

‘DECLARATION BY THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA CONCERNING:

| — | the Convention of 26 July 1995, based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention):

  With reference to Article 40(2) of the Europol Convention the Republic of Bulgaria expresses its consent that disputes between Members States on the interpretation and application of the Convention be systematically referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Convention of 26 July 1995, based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention):

With reference to Article 40(2) of the Europol Convention the Republic of Bulgaria expresses its consent that disputes between Members States on the interpretation and application of the Convention be systematically referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities;

| — | the Protocol of 24 July 1996, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office:

  Pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Europol Convention, the Republic of Bulgaria declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in accordance with the procedures specified in Article 2(2)(a).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

the Protocol of 24 July 1996, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office:

Pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Europol Convention, the Republic of Bulgaria declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in accordance with the procedures specified in Article 2(2)(a).’

---
#### Imelda ROMO DE SALAS; Edgar Jesus Salas-Romo; Nallely Gisela Salas-Romo, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-71006.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*204Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Gary Finn, Esq., Attorney at Law, Indio, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Imelda Romo de Salas, Edgar Jesus Salas-Romo and Nallely Gisela Salas-Romo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

The IJ denied cancellation for failure to demonstrate hardship and the period and for failure to demonstrate continuous physical presence, and the BIA summarily affirmed. Petitioners contend they established ten years of continuous physical presence, they received ineffective assistance of council and their due process rights were violated when the BIA failed to remand their case to the IJ. We lack jurisdiction to consider any of these eontentions because the petitioners failed to raise them before the BIA and, thus, failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. *See Zara v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 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.
#### Jun Fang LIN; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70195.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Bruce Bowman, Esq, Palos Verdes, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jun Fang Lin and his wife, Guizhen Zhou, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA based its denial on the finding that inconsistencies in Lin’s testimony and asylum declaration were central to Lin’s claim of persecution. Lin neither challenged the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, nor addressed his eligibility for CAT in his opening brief. Accordingly, he has waived review of any issues relating to the denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

**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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         38
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   726
<PP&E>                                           5,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,173)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,064
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,294
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,702
<OTHER-SE>                                    (37,366)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,789
<SALES>                                          8,090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,090
<CGS>                                            3,734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,033)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### LOVE v. INSURANCE CO. and INSURANCE CO. v. MOORE

No. 108 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 444.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 50 3 . REGI N ALD L. MCRAE v . THE STATE.

Reg i n al d L

. M cRae p l ed g u i l t y t o p o ss es s i o n o f co cai n e, an d hi s ju d g m en t o f

co n vi ct i o n was en t ered o n No v em b er 2 9

, 2 0 1 0

. He s u bs eq u en t l y fi l ed a p ro s e

M o t i on t o M od i fy Sen t en ce D u e t o Cl eri cal Erro r. Th e tri al co u r t e n t e r e d an o rd er

res o l vi n g t h e m o t i o n o n M arch 2 7

, 2 0 14

, an d M cRae fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap p eal o n M ay

5

. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i on b ecau s e t h e ap p eal i s u n t i m el y

. A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m u s t b e

fi led wi t h i n 30 d ay s aft er t h e en t ry o f t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e

p ro p er an d t im el y fi l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o c o n f er ju ri s d i ct i o n u p on t h i s Co u rt

. Co u ch v. Un it ed Pa p er wo r ker s In t l

. Un i o n , 2 2 4 Ga.

Ap p

. 72 1 (4 8 2 SE2 d 7 04 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Here, M cRae fi l ed h i s n o ti c e o f a p p eal 3 9 day s

aft er t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er was en t ered

. A cco rd i n gl y , t he ap p eal i s u n t i m el y , an d i t

i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/06/2016 January 06, 2016
#### JAMES THOMAS O’DONNELL, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8487

November 21, 1975

542 P.2d 733

*Grellman, Polaha & Coffin,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Calvin R. Dunlap,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

*755OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

At the conclusion of a preliminary examination James Thomas O’Donnell was ordered to stand trial for burglary, a felony under NRS 205.060. O’Donnell then sought and was denied habeas corpus in the district court. In this appeal O’Donnell argues we are compelled to reverse because the state failed to produce evidence to corroborate the only incriminating testimony, that given by an accomplice, Clarence Rew Baggett.

Baggett, an ex-felon, testified he and O’Donnell burglarized a medical clinic in Sparks. The record shows this testimony was given in exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement, *inter alia,*to recommend that Baggett be given a suspended sentence and probation on the instant charge.

Other than Baggett’s testimony, the only inference that O’Donnell may have been implicated was from a witness who testified that a car of the same make and color as one owned by O’Donnell had been parked at the medical clinic at a time when the burglary could have taken place. Respondent’s argument that this testimony corroborates Baggett is contrary to Nevada law. See Austin v. State, 87 Nev. 578, 585, 491 P.2d 724, 729 (1971), wherein the court noted that it had previously held “that an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated, even to show probable cause to hold for trial, merely by showing the defendant was with the accomplice near the scene of the crime on the night it was committed, at the time the accomplice testified they committed it in concert.”

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the district court with instructions to grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the event the state has evidence to corroborate Baggett, it may institute new charges within 15 days after remittitur issues.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5494 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5494

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2010

                                Received

                           September 29, 2010

    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain properties 
                      to the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer to the District of 
Columbia by quitclaim deed all right, title, and interest of the United 
States to the following properties in the District of Columbia:
            (1) Square 336, Lot 828, as shown on Assessment and 
        Taxation Plat 3761-Y among the records of the Surveyor of the 
        District of Columbia (Shaw Junior High School recreation 
        fields).
            (2) Square 542, Lot 85, as referenced on page 104 of 
        Subdivision Book 141 and shown on Map 8634 among the records of 
        the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Southwest Library).
            (3) Square 2864, Lot 830, as shown on Assessment and 
        Taxation Plat 3495-G among the records of the Surveyor of the 
        District of Columbia (Meyer Elementary School).
            (4) Reservation 277-A, as shown on page 4 of Subdivision 
        Book 134 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of 
        Columbia.
            (5) Square 2558, Lot 803, as shown on Assessment and 
        Taxation Plat 65 among the records of the Surveyor of the 
        District of Columbia (a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community 
        Learning Center).
            (6) Square 2558, Lot 810, as shown on Assessment and 
        Taxation Plat 65 among the records of the Surveyor of the 
        District of Columbia (a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community 
        Learning Center).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### GEORGIANNA POWERS GOERKE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. FRANK HUBENY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October term, 1931

Decided December 10, 1931.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

*35For the rule, *Arthur T. Vanderbilt.*

*Contra, Edward A. Marldey*and *Charles Stockdell Gray.*

Pee Curiam.

This is defendant’s rule under which it is sought to set aside a verdict of $15,000 in favor of the plaintiff Edwin H. Bennett, for personal injuries, &c., received in an automobile collision that took place at the intersection of Cherry ' and Sayre streets, Elizabeth, on April 15th, 1929.

Two reasons are urged—•

1. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

2. The verdict is excessive.

We do not so find and the rule to show cause will be discharged, with costs.
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13