alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter to Notify Employer That Employee Has Protested RRB's Record of Service & Compensation

The employee identified above has protested the Railroad Retirement Board’s record of service and 

compensation. Please complete and return the enclosed form GL-129a, Record of Employer 

Determination on Employee Protest of Service and Compensation, so that we can respond to the 

employee’s protest. 

Your reply may be either mailed to the above address or faxed to us at 1-312-751-7123.

Sincerely,

Chief of Compensation and Employer Services

Enclosure 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

COMPENSATION & EMPLOYER SERVICES CENTER

844 NORTH RUSH STREET

CHICAGO, IL 60611-1275

WWW.RRB.GOV

OFFICE HOURS: M-T-TH-F 9:00 AM TO 3:30 PM TOLL-FREE NUMBER: 1-877-772-5772

WEDS. 9:00 AM TO 12:00 PM - CLOSED FEDERAL HOLIDAYS 

, 

In reply refer to

SSN No. : 

Name : 

BA No. : 

Payroll ID :
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 27, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00149

- CV

Nasser NAKISSA

, Appellant

v.

Sarah E. MENCHACA

, Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 19593 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Be th Watkins, Justice

L iza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On June 23, 2021, we issued an opinion and judgment dismissing this appeal for failure to pay the $205 notice of appeal filing fee. On July 6 , 2021, appellant Nasser Nakissa filed a letter we construed as a motion for rehearing, in which he explained that he had mailed a money order in the amount of the filing fee to this court. On July 13, 2021, the clerk of this court informed appellant by le tter that we had not received his money order and notified him that if he wished to reinstate the appeal, he needed to pay the notice of appeal and motion for rehearing filing fees and provide a written explanation for his failure to timely pay the notice of appeal filing fee.

O n September 1, 2021, appellant paid the required fees and offered an explanation for his failure to timely pay the notice of appeal filing fee. Because it appeared that appellant had complied with the directives in our July 13, 2021 letter, we invited appellee Sara E. Menchaca to file a response to appellant’s motion for rehearing by September 20, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.2. Appellee did not file a response to the motion for rehearing.

After considerat ion, appellant’s motion for rehearing is GRANTED

. See id. R. 49.3. We

WITHDRAW our June 23, 2021 opinion and judgment dismissing this appeal and reinstate the appeal to the docket.T he clerk’s record was originally due May 17, 2021, but has not been filed. On May 20,

2021, the district clerk filed a notification of late record, stating the clerk’s record was not filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay th e clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We therefore ORDER appellant Nasser Nakissa to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have be en made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee by October 12, 2021

. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution

. See Tex. R. App. P

. 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Beth W atkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
BLS Technical Advisory Committee 

November 19, 2021

 

10:00 am Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments

10:30 am Insurance Claims Data in Medical Care Price Indexes

Presenter: John Bieler, BLS Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Brian Parker, BLS Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Discussants: Marshall Reinsdorf, International Monetary Fund

Carol Corrado, The Conference Board

12:00 pm Lunch

1:00 pm Generating New Data on Emerging Topics Using the New QCEW Business Supplement 

(QBS) 

Presenter: Emily Thomas, BLS Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics

Discussants: Bart Hobijn, Arizona State University

Frauke Kreuter, University of Maryland

2:30 pm Adjusting Industry Measures of Hours Worked for Labor Composition

Presenter: Jerin Varghese, Office of Productivity and Technology

Discussants: David Deming, Harvard University

Chinhui Juhn, University of Houston

4:00 pm Conclusion

All times Eastern Standard Time. Please contact BLSTAC@bls.gov for questions.

Register at https://blstac.eventbrite.com
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,632]


Duct Sox Corporation, a Subsidiary of Rite Hite, Dubuque, IA; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 18, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by workers of Duct Sox Corporation, a subsidiary of Rite 
Hite, Dubuque, Iowa.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15288 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
@article{1212511,
  author = {Drew Rotunno and Nik Prajapati and Samuel Berweger and MATTHEW SIMONS and Aly Artusio-Glimpse and Amy Robinson and chris holloway},
  title = {Inverse Transform Sampling for Efficient Doppler-Averaged Spectroscopy Simulations},
  year = {2023},
  number = {13},
  month = {2023-07-14 04:07:00},
  publisher = {AIP Advances},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935064},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0157748},
  language = {en},
}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

RASHAAD FITZGERALD, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 252 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
#### In the Matter of Ahmed I., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 10]

There was nothing in appellant’s counsel’s summation, or in any other aspect of the fact-finding hearing, that was sufficient to raise a justification defense. Accordingly, his claim that the presentment agency failed to disprove that defense is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also find that the court’s finding was not against the weight of the *320evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments addressed to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.

Given the seriousness of the offenses, which included, among other things, injury to a police officer, and appellant’s misbehavior and poor performance in school, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation, which was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the need for protection of the community *(see e.g. Matter of Jonaivy Q.,*286 AD2d 645 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00260-CV

Kafai LEE,

Appellant

v.

Kenneth LAU, Connie Andrews, and Golden Wok, LTD.,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-12940

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has 

failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that the 

appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of 

the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made 

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NEIL CALVIN JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-00900-RBH-1; 4:10-cv-70246-RBH)

Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neil Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles, 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Neil Calvin Johnson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying, as successive, his motion to amend his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. The district 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider Johnson’s motion to amend 

his § 2255 motion because it was a successive and unauthorized 
3

§ 2255 motion.∗ Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny as moot Johnson’s motion to expedite, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

 ∗ In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this 

court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a 

successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
@article{1206751,
  author = {Mehdi Hashemi-Tilehnoee and Nikolay Tsirin and Victor Stoudenets and Yuriy Bushuev and Miroslaw Chorazewski and Mian Li and Dan Li and Juscelino Leao and Markus Bleuel and Pawel Zajdel and Elena Palomo Del Barrio and Yaroslav Grosu},
  title = {Liquid Piston Based on Molecular Springs for Energy Storage Applications},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-10 00:05:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Energy Storage},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Scuderi, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 723]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 30, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in failing to order, sua sponte, an examination to determine if he understood the plea proceeding *(see*CPL 730.30 *1027[1]; *People v Pryor,*11 AD3d 565, 566 [2004]; *People v Gomez,*256 AD2d 356 [1998]; *People v Rowley,*222 AD2d 718 [1995]; *People v Hollis,*204 AD2d 569 [1994]; *People v Polimeda,*198 AD2d 242, 243 [1993]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his plea was not valid because the County Court failed to conduct a further inquiry as to whether he was aware of and waived any possible defenses *(see People v Clarke,*93 NY2d 904, 905 [1999]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; *People v Martin,*7 AD3d 640, 641 [2004]; *People v Harrell,*288 AD2d 489 [2001]; *People v Edgehill,*130 AD2d 761, 762 [1987]). The exception to this preservation requirement *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) is inapplicable herein because nothing in the plea allocution casts significant doubt on the defendant’s guilt, or calls into question the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Richardson,*13 AD3d 561 [2004]; *People v Harrell, supra; compare People v Simone,*179 AD2d 694 [1992]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; *People v Lopez, supra; People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). Schmidt, J.E, Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00183-CR

Richard LARES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR10110

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After Appellant filed a pro se motion to stay judgment and conviction, on July 2, 2015, 

we denied the motion because Appellant is represented in this appeal by court-appointed counsel. 

After his counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, Appellant filed a motion to 

reconsider our denial of his motion to stay judgment and conviction.

Appellant is still represented by counsel. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (noting court-appointed counsel’s duties continue until, inter alia, the motion 

to withdraw has been granted). Appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation. See Ex 

parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 

Appellant’s pro se motion to reconsider our July 2, 2015 order is DENIED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
@misc{1214921,
  author = {Joyce Yang and Patrick J. Grother and Mei Lee Ngan and Kayee Hanaoka and Austin Hom},
  title = {Face Analysis Technology Evaluation (FATE) Part 11: Face Image Quality Vector Assessment: Specific Image Defect Detection},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-19 04:09:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956188},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8485},
  language = {en},
}
Form G-88A.1 (09-18)

 Request for Verification of Date Last Worked – (Month/Year) Retirements FORM APPROVED

 OMB No. 3220-0005 

The following is a list of your former employees who have recently filed an application for either an age and service or a disability annuity with the Railroad 

Retirement Board (RRB). The employees provided their Date Last Worked for your railroad: and, if applicable, the ending date of any Pay For Time Lost after 

the actual date last worked. If the employees are filing based on age and service, they provided their Date Relinquished Rights to railroad employment. The 

dates the employees provided on their applications are shown below. If these dates are correct, there is nothing you need to do. But if any of these dates are 

NOT correct, please cross them out and enter the correct date above them. When correcting a date, add an attachment explaining the correction.

Fax your correction to the Retirement and Survivor Benefits Division – Retirement Initial Section: (312) 751-7192.

BA

No SSN Payroll Name Job Title Dept-Div Location

Date Last 

Worked

Last Day of 

Pay For Time 

Lost, If Later 

Than Date 

Last Worked

Date 

Relinquished

Rights, If 

Applicable

CERTIFICATION: I understand that civil and criminal penalties can be imposed against me for false and fraudulent statements or for withholding information to misrepresent a fact material to 

determine a right to payment under the Railroad Retirement Act. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information which I have given is true, complete, and correct.

Signature: Date:

Title:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD FORM APPROVED

OMB NO. 3220-0005
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 ATS Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Dale, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 D. Dale
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael D. Dale
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            August 13, 2003

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



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sterling Financial Corporation (the Company)
for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of
the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Roger Moyer, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: March  25, 2005
    By:
    /s/ J. Roger Moyer, Jr.J. Roger Moyer, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. 
 2013-2014 Compensation of Non-Employee
Directors 
 — For the annual service period beginning on May 14, 2013, the date of the 2013 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders— 
  

			
	 Standard Fees
	  	 Description

	 Annual Director Retainer
	  	
	 - Stock Component
	  	- $115,000 valuation
		  	- Granted on May 14, 2013. Issued pursuant to Company’s 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”)
	 - Cash Component
	  	- $75,000
		  	- Payable on or after May 14, 2013
		
	 Committee Chairperson Annual Retainer
	  	- $9,000 for the chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, payable on or after May 14, 2013
		  	- $12,500 for the chairperson of the Compensation Committee, payable on or after May 14, 2013
		  	- $20,000 for the chairperson of the Audit Committee, payable on or after May 14, 2013
		
	 Chairman of the Board Retainer
	  	 - $100,000 
 -
Payable on or after May 14, 2013

		
	 Committee Annual Retainer
	  	- $4,500 for each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, payable on or after May 14, 2013
		  	- $6,250 for each member of the Compensation Committee, payable on or after May 14, 2013
		  	- $10,000 for each member of the Audit Committee, payable on or after May 14, 2013









			
	 Other
	  	 
	 Deferred Compensation Plan
	  	- Directors may defer receipt of their cash and stock compensation. Deferred cash amounts are accrued in a memorandum account that is credited with interest derived from the
so-called General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Rate (2.80% in 2013). At the election of each director, cash deferrals of retainers may be converted to Common Stock of the Company with such stock issued pursuant to the 2006
Plan
		
	 Conversion Program
	  	- At the election of each director, cash retainers may be converted into Common Stock of the Company with such stock issued pursuant to the 2006 Plan
		
	 Reimbursable Expenses
	  	- Travel and related expenses incurred in connection with service on the Board of Directors and its Committees
		
	 Matching Charitable Contributions
	  	- Company will provide matching contributions to qualified charitable organizations up to $5,000 per director per year