alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1. Express Recovery Systems, Inc. filed a motion for summary

disposition on other theories, which we do not address. 2013 UT App 43

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS

E XPRESS R ECOVERY S ERVICES

, I NC

.,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

S TAT C OCHRON

,

Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20120882

‐ CA

Filed February 22, 2013

Third District, West Jordan Department

The Honorable Andrew H. Stone

The Honorable Su Chon

No. 110415299

Stat Cochron, Appellant Pro Se

Edwin B. Parry, Attorney for Appellee

Before J UDGES O RME

, T HORNE

, and R OTH

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Stat Cochron appeals the judgment entered against him on

September 11, 2012. This matter is before the court on its own

motion for summary disposition. 1 This court cannot review the

issues raised because Cochron has not provided an adequateExpress Recovery Systems, Inc. v. Cochron

2. Cochron’s certification indicated that he lacked the resources to

pay for the transcripts. Accordingly, in this court’s sua sponte

motion for summary disposition the court indicated to Cochron

that if he could not afford a transcript, he could file a statement of

evidence and proceedings in compliance with rule 11(g) of the

Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court further noted that if

the statement of evidence was properly filed and served,

consideration of the motion for summary disposition would be

stayed pending review of the statement by the district court.

Cochron failed to file such a statement.

20120882

‐ CA 2013 UT App 43 2 record on appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 11 (discussing the record

requirements on appeal).

¶2 Cochron’s docketing statement sets forth numerous issues

relating to rulings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law made by

the district court during the course of trial. However, Cochron filed

a certification stating that a transcript of the proceeding was not

necessary. 2

¶3 When a defendant predicates error to this Court, he

has the duty and responsibility of supporting such

allegation by an adequate record. Absent that record,

defendant’s assignment of error stands as a unilateral

allegation which the reviewing court has no power to

determine. This Court simply cannot rule on a

question which depends for its existence upon

alleged facts unsupported by the record.

State v. Wulffenstein

, 657 P.2d 289, 293 (Utah 1982). All issues raised

by Cochron in his docketing statement and in his response to this

court’s motion for summary disposition involve rulings made

during the course of his trial. Cochron has failed to provide this

court with a transcript of those proceedings. Without such a

transcript, we must presume the correctness of the underlying

decisions. See State v. Mead

, 2001 UT 58, ¶ 48, 27 P.3d 1115 (statingExpress Recovery Systems, Inc. v. Cochron

20120882

‐ CA 2013 UT App 43 3 that in the absence of an adequate record on appeal, we presume

the correctness of the disposition and cannot address the issues

raised).

¶4 Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 51180 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSEPH CLIFFORD STANISLAWSKI , also known as Joseph Stanislawski,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10

- CR

- 1563

- 5

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Clifford Stanislawski has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Stanislawski h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51180 Document: 00513804738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 15

- 51180

2 appellate review. Accordingly, co unsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-51180 Document: 00513804738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JUSTICE 

MANAGEMENT DIVISION, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0200

Issued: May 25, 2022

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On October 2, 2019 appellant filed an appeal from August 6 and September 19, 2019 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-0200.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that this appeal must be dismissed. By 

decision dated February 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization for left wrist 

joint repair surgery. On July 15, 2019 appellant filed an appeal with the Board of the February 22, 

2019 OWCP decision under Docket No. 19-1557. 

The Board’s Rules of Procedure, at section 501.2(c)(3), provides, “The Board and OWCP 

may not exercise simultaneous jurisdiction over the same issue in a case on appeal. Following the 

docketing of an appeal before the Board, OWCP does not retain jurisdiction to render a further 

decision regarding the issue on appeal until after the Board relinquishes jurisdiction.

1

 

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(3). See also M.S., Docket Nos. 19-1090 & 20-0408 (issued April20, 2020); J.W.,Docket 

No. 19-1688 (issued March 18, 2020); George Simpson, Docket No. 93-0452 (issued February 18, 1994); ArloniaB. 

Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993) (Groom, Member, concurring in part and dissenting in part); Douglas E.Billings, 

41 ECAB 880 (1990).
2

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that once appellant filed the Board 

appeal on July 15, 2019 in response to OWCP’s February 22, 2019 decision OWCP had no 

jurisdiction to issue its August 6 and September 19, 2019 decisions as they involve the same 

underlying issue of whether OWCP properly denied authorization for left wrist joint repair surgery.

Consequently, the August 6 and September 19, 2019 decisions are null and void.2

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8149 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a), the Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to review of final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act. As the August 6 and September 19, 2019 decisions are null and 

void, the appeal assigned Docket No. 20-0200does not contain a final adverse decision over which 

the Board may properly take jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as 

No. 20-0200 is dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 20-0200 is dismissed.

Issued: May 25, 2022

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

2

Id.
# L_2007054EN.01015701.xml

| 22.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 54/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 54/157

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2006 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 15 of 20 January 2007
  )

On page 126, Annex IIA, point 13, Table 1, the entries for ‘Beam trawls’ should read as follows:

| | Areas as defined in point: |
| --- | --- |
| Gear Point 4.1 | Special condition Point 8 | Denomination1 | 2.a
  Kattegat | 2.b
  1 — Skagerrak
  2 — II, IVa, b,c,
  3 — VIId | 2.c
  VIIa | 2.d
  VIa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
| (...) |

Areas as defined in point:

Gear Point 4.1

Special condition Point 8

Denomination1

2.a

Kattegat

2.b

1 — Skagerrak

2 — II, IVa, b,c,

3 — VIId

2.c

VIIa

2.d

VIa

1

2

3

(...)

| ‘b.i | | Beam trawls with mesh size ≥80 and < 90 mm | n.r. | 1322 | Unl. | 132 | 1432 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| b.ii | | Beam trawls with mesh size ≥90 and < 100 mm | n.r. | 1432 | Unl. | 143 | 1432 |
| b.iii | | Beam trawls with mesh size ≥100 and < 120 mm | n.r. | 143 | Unl. | 143 | 143 |
| b.iv | | Beam trawls with mesh size ≥ 120 mm | n.r. | 143 | Unl. | 143 | 143 |
| b.iii | 8.1.(c) | Beam trawls with mesh size ≥100 and < 120 mm track records shall represent less than 5 % of cod | n.r. | 155 | Unl. | 155 | 155’ |

‘b.i

Beam trawls with mesh size ≥80 and < 90 mm

n.r.

1322

Unl.

132

1432

b.ii

Beam trawls with mesh size ≥90 and < 100 mm

n.r.

1432

Unl.

143

1432

b.iii

Beam trawls with mesh size ≥100 and < 120 mm

n.r.

143

Unl.

143

143

b.iv

Beam trawls with mesh size ≥ 120 mm

n.r.

143

Unl.

143

143

b.iii

8.1.(c)

Beam trawls with mesh size ≥100 and < 120 mm track records shall represent less than 5 % of cod

n.r.

155

Unl.

155

155’

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8160

SENNAYI TEOUME-LESSANE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

JEFFREY BOLYARD, Acting Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. 

Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00159-FPS-JES) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009 

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sennayi Teoume-Lessane, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Sennayi Teoume-Lessane, a federal prisoner, appeals 

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Teoume-Lessane v. Bolyard, No. 5:07-cv00159-FPS-JES (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 17, 2008). We deny TeoumeLessane’s motion for appointment of counsel and deny his motion 

to expedite as moot. 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. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Pioneer Drilling Company:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 of Pioneer Drilling Company (Reg. Nos. 333-48286 and 333-110569) of
our report dated May 20, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Pioneer Drilling Company and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2003, which report appears in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Pioneer Drilling Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003.

/s/
KPMG LLP

KPMG
LLP

San
Antonio, Texas
June 18, 2004

---



QuickLinks
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

         In connection with the quarterly report of SRKP 1, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      (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/ Richard Rappaport
-----------------------------------------------
         Richard Rappaport
         President (Principal Executive Officer)

         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
-----------------------------------------------
         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
         Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

May 12, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SRKP 1, Inc. and will be retained by SRKP 1, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7462 or by e-mail:                         *donna.nangle@ed.gov.*

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the TDD number at (202) 245-7317 or the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339. 

                        Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (                        *e.g.*, Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this section.                     

## VIII. Other Information 

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530. 

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: November 8, 2005. 

John H. Hager, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 05-22634 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:March 19, 2019/s/ David J. MazzoDavid J. Mazzo, PhDPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:March 19, 2019/s/ Joseph TalamoJoseph TalamoSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5610 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                         July 27, 2010.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
5610) entitled ``An Act to provide a technical adjustment with respect 
to funding for independent living centers under the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 in order to ensure stability for such centers.'', do pass with 
the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            In section 2(a)(2)(A), strike [July 30] and insert August 5

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 5610

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honomblm John D. RI& Coulerloner, Bureauof Labor Stiatlrtios Aurria,Poser Dam Sir:

IIon April 24, r towa la ImuA
. **or mom**  that 

### 8l p plp 80 mid

o plalon l u+ tha Atiial. 

### 1573of 

### 1573,Panal Coda,

r 8!Aplayea of any 

### PtWWA, rartrr 8mplot a4 

### 0hila hbm in or 

### bout w

Xn Spearev. City of San Antonia, 223 9.Y. 166, lt we6 selQ by the 3uprearCourtot **Terasr**

“l%ofa 16 but **ona** rulr **of OOn8tZ** **’ UOt~OA,**  **aAd** that I# thatthe Lep,islatirr intentram8 **&OV8rZIem**Hoaorable John Ii. kee4, p8ge 2

Thus * statute *roulQ _. _. _. .. to it8 lcfenaec aaope i lte gOnera purpose, end Oh8 8Ad QC object sou&t tu be e telnmd , all of %&lob are osttere OS leglrlnti*a Lnt*nt.

The pnreaoeat 6~11 wh!~ohJrttole 1573, eupP~, emnireatlg *‘wht to prerrat woe injury to ehlldrrn 

### under 15 yenta of ngc<remultl~ frmi the oooupetion 3f l m& children la UAAS~ labor Ln or sbmt faotorler, rille, rorkehops and lronarlea, thle regmrdleee of the rim bi the oity or town in ublah l uob 

### l peollisd setablirhAeAtA might be situated. The alar at the city ox'town in *hioh eueh l otabllehmrtit 8i&ht be eltoa%oQ eouid hate 110 off+ on the evil sopght to ba prerenQe4 lo this r88plOtr The uorur ".

. . or in reosrager rervlor In towns or oltira or sore then 15,000 po Alatioa. 

### l laplO$Wsnt **OS 8UOh**  **Ohi P**  . . .* 

### l ~ply only to t&o **dr8A** :A **A8#88ng8r 88rviOO**  **iA tURAA**  or altlea of 100m then 15,000 popoleblon, 

### l aoordlw %athe preer~l~ redera oeaeua. Wml~er tly the 1r&l. ttirrOOA- ~*:uerra met weeenger rerrlor -is oft&e* or towlu hetin& TV pOplet:OA 0s AOre theA x5s000 WnU WI8 hiD43erOUb tiem IA oft188 havhg a lewer pepaletioab By 80 llnltio(c Bh%r **feature of**  the **Aot** thaw **effect** la **to** p&&t tha 

### l aplO~ojrrat at ohildren onder 15 fears OS ofid lo mesee~er aenlor Jm tome &ohg a populetlaaof 15,000 br Letr. A0 Oitt AOr'tiOUD:A &m &oOty bsViIl& l more than 15,000, ohil6ren 

### uader the age lawfully be empleefed in 0ee#eager rervloe Ln eAYslty 

### or **tOWA** :A **BFOUA COAAtY.**  However, rash oblldren uy mot bo amlored to labor fa’mw f6OtO?y, alUs wmbbop or bundrF

**COMMIl76L**

. - .
# C_2007210EN.01000101.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4757 — Nordic Capital/Thule)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 210/01)

On 20 July 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4757. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4757. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SANCHEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 244

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd D istrict Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20170D03473 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third mot ion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until September 20 , 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE STATE ’S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court o n or before September 20 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of August , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.