or a breakdown in the administrative process.” (FOF ¶ 12.) Without making any specific credibility determinations, the ALJ stated that: While it may appear from the testimony and evidence that an appeal may have been filed prior to December 15, 2011, no certificate of mailing or receipt was provided to prove that an appeal was filed or on what date it was filed in this case. Therefore, I do not find [that C.E.] has met his burden of showing there are sufficient grounds to allow the appeal to proceed nunc pro tunc. (ALJ Adjudication at 3.) Accordingly, the ALJ recommended that C.E.’s appeal be dismissed as untimely. The Bureau adopted the ALJ’s adjudication and C.E. requested reconsideration by the Secretary. The Secretary granted reconside ew, 543 Pa. 381, 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Bass v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 485 Pa.
holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day holding that oral imposition of sentence begins seven day clock for rule 35c holding that appellants seven day hospitalization was a nonnegligent circumstance holding that there was no coercion by the trial court where the jury deliberated all day friday and all day saturday holding that failure to consider potential mail delay was not a nonnegligent circumstance