alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



XANSER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Xanser Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 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, and allows for timely decisions
regarding disclosures;b)
    
    [intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
cover by this quarterly report, based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ HOWARD C. WADSWORTH

Howard C. WadsworthSenior Vice President, Controller and Secretary(Chief Financial Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTHONY MILLER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1849

[ November 10, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes

, Judge; L.T. Case No

. 50

- 2015

- CF

- 011094

- BXXX

- MB.

Anthony Miller

, Madison

, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig

, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 23.0—CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-40353) pertaining to the 1990 Directors StockOption Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-83826) pertaining to theInter-Tel, Incorporated 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan, Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 33-73620) pertaining to the Inter-Tel, Incorporated EmployeeStock Ownership Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-41197)pertaining to the Inter-Tel, Incorporated 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan andInter-Tel, Incorporated 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-56872) pertaining to the Acquisition Stock OptionPlan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67261) pertaining to theAcquisition Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-85098)pertaining to the Inter-Tel, Incorporated 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan andAcquisition Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87474)pertaining to the Inter-Tel, Incorporated 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-104642) pertaining to the Inter-Tel,Incorporated 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-106868) pertaining to the Inter-Tel, Incorporated Tax Deferred SavingsPlan and Retirement Trust, and Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-58161),Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-61437), Registration Statement (FormS-3 No. 333-01735), Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-12433),Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-39221), of our report dated February17, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and scheduleof Inter-Tel, Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) ofInter-Tel, Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2003.     Phoenix, Arizona
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

WILLIAM S. MIDDLETON MEMORIAL 

VETERANS’ HOSPITAL, Madison, WI, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 23-0362

Issued: January 22, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 14, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a purported January 11, 2023 decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0362.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

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

The only decision of record dated January 11, 2023 was a Board decision in Docket No. 22-0536

affirming OWCP decisions dated November 9, 2021 and February 15, 2022.

2

 The decision

became final after 30 days of issuance and is not subject to further review. 3 The case record as 

transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 Docket No. 22-0536 (issued January 11, 2023).

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d); see R.T., Docket No. 19-0604 (issued September 13, 2019).
2

days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.4 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. 23-0362 must be dismissed.5 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0362 is dismissed.

Issued: January 22, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

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.”

5 To the extent that appellant’s appeal constitutes a timely petition for reconsideration of the Board’s January11, 

2023 decision, the petition for reconsideration will proceed separately under Docket No. 22 -0536.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-81,361-02

EX P ARTE KENNETH GERHART AN DREW, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1058171-A IN THE 177TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag gravated sexual assault and sentenc ed to thirty -five year s’ imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his c onviction. Andrew v. State , No. 14-07-00241- CR (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to timely notify him that his conviction had been aff irmed. The trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions o f law that appellate2

counsel failed to timely not i fy Applicant that his conviction had been aff irmed. The trial court
rec ommends that relief

be grante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the Four teenth Court of Appea ls in cause number 14-07- 00241-CR that affirme d his conviction in cause number 1058171 from the 177th D istrict Court of Har ris County . Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the dateon which this Court’s mandate issues. Deliver ed: September

24, 2014 Do not publish
Case 1:06-cv-14935-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 1
deficiency action. Specifically, petitioners contend that the district court 

has indicated its intention to grant real party in interest's application for a 

deficiency judgment. Petitioners further contend that the district court 

has indicated its intention to deny petitioners' motion to continue an NRS 

40.457 valuation hearing. In this writ petition, petitioners ask that this 

court order the district court to vacate these two anticipated orders. 

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of 

an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious 

exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second 

Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ 

of prohibition may be warranted when the district court exceeds its 

jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. Either writ is an extraordinary remedy, and 

whether such petitions will be considered is within our sole discretion. 

Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 

(1991). Writ relief is not available when an adequate and speedy legal 

remedy exists, and the right to appeal is generally considered to be such a 

remedy. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 

840, 841 (2004). Moreover, it is petitioners' burden to demonstrate that 

our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. 

Having considered petitioners' writ petition and appendix, we 

conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this 

time. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Preliminarily, the absence 

of written orders makes it impossible to determine the extent to which the 

district court may have abused its discretion, Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 

Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that 

an oral ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and we are unable to 

otherwise infer from the documents in petitioners' appendix what the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
J. 

(:■52_21e„ 

,J. 

Saitta 

district court's reasoning may have been. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring a 

petitioner's appendix to include all documents "that may be essential to 

understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Moreover, with respect 

to the issues raised in the writ petition, petitioner has not demonstrated 

that an appeal would be an inadequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 

224, 228, 88 P.3d at 841, 844. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition. 

It is so ORDERED. 1 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Connaghan Newberry Law Firm 

Mazur & Brooks, A PLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'In light of our order, petitioners' emergency motion for stay is 

denied as moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

3
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5593 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for timely access 

to post-mastectomy items under Medicare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2010 

Ms. SUTTON (for herself, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, and Mr. GENE GREEN of 

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for timely access to post-mastectomy items under Medicare. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TIMELY ACCESS TO POST-MASTECTOMY ITEMS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(h)(1) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as sub7 paragraph (I); and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5593 IH

1 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the fol2 lowing new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(H) SPECIAL PAYMENT RULE FOR POST4 MASTECTOMY EXTERNAL BREAST PROSTHESIS

5 GARMENTS.—Payment for post-mastectomy ex6 ternal breast prosthesis garments shall be made 

7 regardless of whether such items are supplied to 

8 the beneficiary prior to or after the mastectomy 

9 procedure or other breast cancer surgical proce10 dure. The Secretary shall develop policies to en11 sure appropriate beneficiary access and utiliza12 tion safeguards for such items supplied to a 

13 beneficiary prior to the mastectomy or other 

14 breast cancer surgical procedure.’’ 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect as of the date of the enact17 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health (April 15-16, 2020 Meeting)

Additional Recommendation on Occupational Health Questionnaire

Recommendation

The Board recommends pilot testing of the Occupational Health Questionnaire (OHQ) in its 

most recent version provided to the Board with the following additions:

1) Adding a general open-ended question for the end of the OHQ, such as:

“Did we miss anything? For example, are you concerned about any exposures to toxic 

substances that were not adequately described in your responses in this questionnaire? 

Please describe your concern: for example, what types of substances these were (even if 

you don’t know the technical name), when the exposures happened, what kind of PPE 

you used at the time and whether you think these exposures are related to the health 

problem for which you are applying for compensation.”

2) Sending claimants, prior to the OHQ interview, either a copy of the OHQ or a simplified 

version of the OHQ or worksheet, together with brief examples of common work tasks 

and processes, which the claimant could use to gather their occupational information.

Rationale

The structure of the current version of the OHQ is very useful for the purpose of collecting 

structured information concerning important aspects of an individual claimant’s history of work 

for the Department of Energy. An open-ended question, as suggested above, will permit 

claimants to add information that may not have been prompted by the questions of the OHQ.

Many claimants are advanced in age so that many years have passed since the earlier years of 

their employment at a DOE facility and the time of administration the OHQ. It may be very 

useful to such claimants to be able to organize their thoughts and memories prior to the telephone 

or face to face interview during which the OHQ is administered. Sending the claimant the OHQ 

or a simplified version of it, along with some examples of the kind of information sought by the 

OHQ, one to two weeks prior to the OHQ administration may result in a better yield of 

information and a more relaxed atmosphere during OHQ completion.
# L_2007267EN.01001101.xml

| 12.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 267/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 267/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1194/2007

of 11 October 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

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

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 of 14 September 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 of 14 September 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 10 October 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 10 October 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

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

(3)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 10 October 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 shall be 440,31 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 October 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 October 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 242, 15.9.2007, p. 8.

2

---
Exhibit
      32.1





**Certification
      of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Great Plains Energy
      Incorporated (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), Michael J. Chesser, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, and Terry Bassham, as Executive Vice President - Finance
      and Strategic Development and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
      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 the best of 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/
                Michael J. ChesserName:
              Title:
            Michael
                J. Chesser
              Chairman
                of the Board and Chief
              Executive
                OfficerDate:
            August
                4, 2006/s/
                Terry BasshamName:
              Title:
            Terry
                Bassham
              Executive
                Vice President - Finance and Strategic Development and Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            August
                4, 2006





This
      certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      and
      is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
      This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under that
      section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
      incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Great Plains Energy Incorporated and will
      be retained by Great Plains Energy Incorporated and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.