alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Reminder: Official Approval is Required

Take DOL-Issued Devices Outside the US

This message is intended for all DOL federal employees and contractors

DOL staff,

Although the telework environment has expanded this year, our responsibility to safeguard Department of Labor (DOL)

data and devices remains the same. All DOL federal and contractor personnel must properly safeguard and protect data,

systems, and DOL-issued devices, including laptops and mobile devices, in remote environments outside of official DOL

facilities.

As a reminder, official approval is required to take DOL-issued devices outside the United States (the continental

United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and territories of the United States).

If you believe use of a DOL-issued device outside of the United States is required for your work, notify your supervisor

who is responsible for consulting with OHR’s Division of Work Life and Engagement regarding the special administrative

and technical permissions, approvals, and requirements involved in authorizing a domestic employee teleworking

overseas.

Thank you for being vigilant to ensure that we as a Department are handling our devices responsibly and protecting our

data and systems.

Sincerely,

Paul Blahusch

Chief Information Security Officer

Office of the Chief Information Officer

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management

U.S. Department of Labor

Last updated: May 17, 2021

LABORNET
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,900
<SECURITIES>                                   115,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                  970,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,300)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          11,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,517,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        844,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,517,800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20870 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODERICK ANTHONY RICE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas H-96-CR-27-1)

April 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roderick R ice appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Rice contends (1) that he was given

insufficien t notice of the enhancement of his sentence under the career offender

guideline; (2) that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score

and in applying the career offender guideline or, alternatively, that he deserved a

do wnward departure because his criminal history category overrepresented his past1 United States v. Abreo , 30 F.3d 29 (5th Cir. 1994); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2 criminal conduct; (3) that there was insufficient evidence to suppor t the district

court’s finding that the substance inv olved was “crack”cocaine; and (4) that the

district court erred in failing to reduce his sentence based on his minor role in the

offense. In his plea agreement, Rice waived the right to appeal his sentence or the

manner in which it was determined, reserving only the right to appeal an upward

departure. The district court sentenced Rice within the computed guideline range.

Rice’s contention that his waiver is invalid due to inadequate consideration on the

part of the government is devoid of merit. Because Rice waived the right to appeal

his sentence, his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 1

APPEAL DISMISSED.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, MASTEAD ANNEX, 

Albuquerque, NM, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0115

Issued: May 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 23, 2022 nonmerit 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0115.

In a letter received on April 13, 2023, appellant requested that his appeal be withdrawn in 

order to enable him to request reconsideration before OWCP.

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

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

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

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-0115 is dismissed.

Issued: May 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Keith Anthony WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7749.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 30, 2005.

Decided April 12, 2005.

Keith Anthony Williams, Appellant pro se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*516PER CURIAM.

Keith Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### STATE v. MURPHY

No. 10 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 11.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 March 1971.
#### JOSEPH ZULJEVIC, PLAINTIFF, v. ROBERT McINTYRE AND ERNEST GANDLY, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted January term, 1931

Decided January 28, 1932.

Before Justices Case, Daly and Donges.

For the rule, *Coult, Sate & Tomlinson (Gerald T. Foley,*of counsel).

*Contra, William F. Burke.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

The plaintiff brought his action to recover damages for personal injuries and damages to an automobile owned and driven by him, sustained in a collision with a bus owned by defendant McIntyre and driven by defendant G-andly. The case was tried at the Hudson Circuit and the jury returned a verdict against both defendants and assessed the damages at $3,000 for the personal injuries and $500 for the property damage. The defendants obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted and urge as the sole ground therefor that the verdict is excessive. However, defendants’ brief concedes that the assessment of $500 for the property damage is not excessive.

The sole testimony as to plaintiff’s personal injuries and the loss of earnings resulting therefrom was that given by the plaintiff himself. He claimed to have been treated by five doctors of his injuries, but not one of the doctors was called to testify. .There is no evidence of any expenditures for medical treatment.

*185Plaintiff testified that he sustained, in the accident, cuts and bruises and that he was rendered weak and nervous as a result thereof. He also testified that he was unable to do the same work after the accident which he did before the accident. He was the captain of a schooner and a part owner therein. He testified that he was actually laid up as a result of the accident for fourteen days thereafter, that ho then made a trip with his ship lasting twenty-seven days after which he was unable, because of his injuries, to make a trip for two or three months. He testified that he averaged $75 to $90 a week while actually engaged in making a trip with his boat. The sole testimony as to plaintiff’s loss of earnings was that given by him and he did not produce his books of account although he testified he kept records of some nature. The testimony of physical injuries, pain and suffering, and of the loss of earnings because of the same, is too meagre to justify the amount of the verdict.

The verdict for $3,000 for the personal injuries is excessive. If plaintiff will accept a reduction of the verdict for personal injuries to $1,200 the rule will be discharged, otherwise it will be made absolute.
#### Melvin GAMAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lorenzo CABE, Doctor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-60563.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Melvin Gamage, Mississippi Department of Corrections S Mississippi Correctional Institution, Leakesville, MS, pro se.

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Melvin Gamage, Mississippi prisoner # 56705, has appealed the district court’s order denying his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and ordering his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case closed on the ground that he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by pursuing relief through the prison grievance system. In his complaint, Gamage alleged that Dr. Lorenzo Cabe was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during the course of Dr. Cabe’s treatment of Gamage’s in-grown toenail.

Prisoners who wish to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are required to exhaust their prison administrative remedies prior to filing their complaint irrespective of the *573type of relief sought. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); *Ferrington v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corr.,*315 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir.2002). Whether the district court procedurally erred, or did not err, in denying IFP and administratively closing the case on the basis of failure to exhaust, *compare Watson v. Ault,*525 F.2d 886, 891-92 (5th Cir.1976), because the record shows that Gamage had not exhausted his administrative remedies at the time he filed his complaint on February 2, 2004, and because his deliberate-indifference claim is without merit, the error, if any, was harmless. *Alexander v. Tippah County, Miss.,*351 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir.2003); *Varnado v. Lynaugh,*920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
The State of TexasAppellee 

# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** October 1, 2015 N o. 04 - 15 - 00493 - CR and 04 - 15 - 00494 - CR La Quint SULLIVAN , Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court, Be xar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CR7177 and 2015CR2233 Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER The court has examined the record in related Appeal Nos. 04 - 1 5 - 00 493 - C R and 04 - 1 5 - 004 94 - C R and finds that, in the interest of efficient administration, the two cases should be consolidated for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Appeal Nos. 04 - 1 5 - 00 4 93 - C R and 04 - 1 5 - 00 4 94 - C R are CONSOLIDATED . The parties shall file motions, briefs and any other pleadings as if the two causes were one case, but with both cause numbers designated on the cover. The court may dis pose of both causes with the same order, opinion and mandate.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martin ez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of October, 2015 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hot tle Clerk of Court
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

El- fllfford 7. Eobfnson, Zacratarg-‘treasurer 

Te;aa State Board cf Chiropody Smminers 

826 lair Suil.dlnZ 

Fort Zorth, Texas 

Cear Sir: 

opilion X0. O-1414 

f.e : PO&~ of the secretarptrcas~uer of Texas 

State Soerd of Cbirooody 2azimrs. 

This will ackooxledge r+c+lpt of ycur letter tog,etMr with 

tho bosd coztainsd therein requesting t.he WprSvhi 3f t3e ‘3orC 

by the Atto4”Oey General. 

Artlcls 4568, Vernon~s Civil :%atutes., reads in *art as follows : 

wTb mxsb,Sarr of the Ptcta SoarC of’ Chiropody 3radhere shell, before enteridg upon t2e duties of tt;s:r 

cffioes , qualify, by subsarlbl~, to, bafore c notary 

public or other officer authorize@ by lax to ntiidster 

osths, and filing with the %ecratzry of state, the conetitutional 06th of offics, Tb.eg ehall, RS soon aa 

organized, sod biennially thereafter in the xoonth of 

Januerj-, olcct fro= tfieir mzber a .oreald+nt, vlcepresident and o+cretarg-treasursr. The secretargtreasurer, before entsring u?on his duti+s, shall file 

a bond with ths Searetsqr S State for such s*m as 

will be twice the mount of ca@h on hand at the tiios 

the bond is filed; provided, ho*tevsr, t2at the arcouat of 

said bond ahall, In so case, bc lers than Five Thoueond 90llora (@,OOO). Said bond shall be pay-ible to 

tba Govsrnor of this ytate, ror tkie beceilt or soId 

i?oard; shall be oonditioo+il upon the faithful piarforzaooe of the duties of such officer; and sttall be fn 

such ior as pay be sr~proved by the kttorney Csneral 

OS t’..is State; snd sh61i be executed by 0, surety oompony, as surety, snd be apFrov+d by ih+ ?tnte 9o::rd 

of Chiropody ?rfminers.. .m 
Dr. Clifford :!. Eobinson, ?age 2. 

The bond presented for approval is in the amount of 

live Thousand ($S,COO.OO) Eollars which is sufiicient, protided the azouut of cash on hand does not exceed the suz of 

Twenty-five Hundred (.X,5CO.O0) Collars, and tie bond nust 

be approved by t!ie State Board of Chiropody Zxminers before filing with the Secretary of State. 

After having carefully exanlned the above mntioned bond 

xe find it in accordance vSth the provisions of Article 4562, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, and as above stated, the bond mst 

be approved by the State Eoard of Chiropody -!Sanlners before 

tiling 7dth the Secretary of State, and if the mount of cash 

now on hand exceeds the suzn of Twenty-five %ndred (62,500.OO) 

Dollars the secretary-treasurer is required to zaice a bond 

twice the amount of cash on hand at the tize the bond Is 

riled, and Ff the amount of casti on Land at the tize 0S filing 

the bocc is less than Twenty-five ::uhdred (;2,500.CO),Dollars 

the bond in the amount of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars 

is suiflcient. 

Xlth kindest personal regards, -we tire 

Yours very truly 

AFFi?OV'fC OCT 10, 1939 

Robert E. Zepke (signed) 

:.CTT::G ATTOEG?f $ZI-GAL OF TI?XAS 

(sit-wed 1

Ardell ?~llliams 

Assistant 

[CTXZ?ZD) Approved 

Opinion Comittee 

By a.3.s. ,chalrman
#### LEAH E. McCARROLL, Appellant, v. EMERY W. McCARROLL, Respondent.

No. 10924

May 22, 1980

611 P.2d 205

[Rehearing denied July 8, 1980]

*James W. Hardesty,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Roger L. Wright*and *Robert J. Peyton,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This action was commenced almost three years after a final decree of divorce had been entered approving an oral agreement for the division of community property. The purpose of the action is to have the former husband’s retirement pension *456with the U.S. Forest Service declared a community asset and a portion of it awarded to the former wife. The oral agreement for division of community property did not include the pension and no mention was made of it during the divorce action. It is the present contention of the former wife that the former husband was guilty of fraudulent concealment of his retirement pension.

On the record presented, the district court found that the fraud, if any, was intrinsic since the former wife had a fair opportunity to present the claim she is now making to the divorce court. Colby v. Colby, 78 Nev. 150, 369 P.2d 1019 (1962). Consequently, relief is barred by NRCP 60(b). Accordingly, summary judgment was entered for the former husband. We perceive no error.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
------------



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of T & G2, Inc.
(the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     A.   the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10QSB for the period ended
          June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     B.   the  information  contained  in such report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.




Dated: August 24, 2004



/s/ James Farinella
-----------------------------------------------
James Farinella
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Westbury, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0818

Issued: September 26, 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 May 22, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a March 15, 2022 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0818.

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 March 15, 2022 decision was September 11, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until May 22, 2023, more than 180 days after the

March 15, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0818 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. 23-0818, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0818 is dismissed.

Issued: September 26, 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).