alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton

WOODWARD & LOTHROP AND TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2752-95-4 PER CURIAM MAY 14, 1996 SCOTT WAYNE TALBOTT

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (M. Lynn McHale; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & Boccarosse, on brief), for appellants. (Metin A. Cay; Swiger & Cay, on brief), for appellee.

Woodward & Lothrop and its insurer (hereinafter collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Scott Wayne Talbott ("claimant") proved that back fusion surgery to be performed by Dr. Paul Griffith was reasonable and necessary treatment of claimant's compensable injury by accident. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel

Constr. Co. , 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). "A question raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact." Commonwealth v. Powell , 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 532, 533 (1986). In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept the opinions of Drs. Griffith, Eli M. Lippman, and Mark S. Rosenthal that the fusion surgery was reasonable and necessary, and to reject the contrary opinions of Drs. Neil Kahanovitz, Richard S. Materson, and John B. Cohen. The opinions of Drs. Griffith, Lippman, and Rosenthal constitute credible evidence to support the commission's decision. The existence of "contrary evidence in the record is of no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the commission's finding." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks , 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). We find no merit in employer's argument that the commission erred in not giving more weight to the opinion of Dr. Kahanovitz, a treating physician. The record showed that Dr. Griffith, who unequivocally recommended that claimant undergo the surgery, had treated claimant since his December 1990 accident. Dr. Kahanovitz did not begin treating claimant until May 1992. Drs. Lippman and Rosenthal had also treated and examined claimant in arriving at their conclusions. For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision. Affirmed.
Order entered April 8, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01738-CV

LEONARD R. THOMAS, Appellant

V.

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. TX-12-31766

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated February 28, 2014, 

we informed appellant the Court Reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification that he had 

requested the record and had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record, or had been

found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered 

submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required 

documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s 
record. Therefore, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellant’s 

brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3320

To extend eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons and daughters 

of certain Vietnamese refugees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2005

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, and Ms. ZOE

LOFGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To extend eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons 

and daughters of certain Vietnamese refugees.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR REFUGEE STATUS. 

4 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR IN-COUNTRY REFUGEE PROC5 ESSING IN VIETNAM.—For purposes of eligibility for in6 country refugee processing for nationals of Vietnam dur7 ing fiscal years 2006 and 2007, an alien described in sub8 section (b) shall be considered to be a refugee of special 

9 humanitarian concern to the United States (within the 
2

•HR 3320 IH 

1 meaning of section 207 of the Immigration and Nation2 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157)) and shall be admitted to the 

3 United States for resettlement if the alien would be admis4 sible as an immigrant under the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (except as provided in section 207(c)(3) of that 

6 Act). 

7 (b) ALIENS COVERED.—An alien described in this 

8 subsection is an alien who—

9 (1) is the son or daughter of a qualified na10 tional; 

11 (2) is 21 years of age or older; and 

12 (3) was unmarried as of the date of acceptance 

13 of the alien’s parent for resettlement under the Or14 derly Departure Program or through the United 

15 States Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City. 

16 (c) QUALIFIED NATIONAL.—The term ‘‘qualified na17 tional’’ in subsection (b)(1) means a national of Vietnam 

18 who—

19 (1)(A) was formerly interned in a re-education 

20 camp in Vietnam by the Government of the Socialist 

21 Republic of Vietnam; or 

22 (B) is the widow or widower of an individual 

23 described in subparagraph (A); 
3

•HR 3320 IH 

1 (2)(A) qualified for refugee processing under 

2 the Orderly Departure Program re-education sub3 program; and 

4 (B) is or was accepted under the Orderly De5 parture Program or through the United States Con6 sulate General in Ho Chi Minh City—

7 (i) for resettlement as a refugee; or 

8 (ii) for admission to the United States as 

9 an immediate relative immigrant; and 

10 (3)(A) is presently maintaining a residence in 

11 the United States or whose surviving spouse is pres12 ently maintaining such a residence; or 

13 (B) was approved for refugee resettlement or 

14 immigrant visa processing and is awaiting departure 

15 formalities from Vietnam or whose surviving spouse 

16 is awaiting such departure formalities.

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3311

To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically operated pencil sharpeners. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2005

Mr. ROSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically operated 

pencil sharpeners.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTRICALLY OPERATED PENCIL SHARP4 ENERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Electrically operated pencil 

sharpeners (provided for in 

subheading 8472.90.40 ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 3311 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2016

No. 04-16-00465-CR

Allison D. LOZANO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR1746

The Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on July 18, 2016. The clerk’s record 

shows appellant’s pro se notice of appeal was file-stamped by the trial court clerk on July 20, 

2016. Thus, the notice of appeal appeared to have been untimely filed. Because timely filing of a 

written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal, we ordered appellant 

to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Castillo v. 

State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a response to our show cause order, asserting 

that appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule. This response 

was later supplemented with an affidavit in which appellant, an inmate, states that she prepared 

the notice of appeal on July 1, 2016, and deposited it in the mail system at the Bexar County 

Detention Facility one to seven days later. 

Under the prisoner-mailbox rule, a pro se inmate’s pleading is deemed filed at the time 

the prison authorities duly receive the document to be mailed. Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 44 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Campbell v. State, 329 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Here, 

appellant’s affidavit shows that she delivered her notice of appeal to the jail authorities for 

forwarding to the trial court clerk on or before the filing deadline. Additionally, appellant’s 

notice of appeal reached its destination within ten days after the filing deadline. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 9.2(b)(1); Taylor, 424 S.W.3d at 44 (concluding appellate court had jurisdiction when the 

notice of appeal actually reached the correct destination within the period of time permitted by 
the mailbox rule). We, therefore, conclude that appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed and 

that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. This appeal is retained on the Court’s docket. 

The clerk’s record has been filed. The reporter’s record of the revocation proceedings is 

due thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### §70011. Waterfront safety

(a) In General.—The Secretary may take such action as is necessary to—

(1) prevent damage to, or the destruction of, any bridge or other structure on or in the navigable waters of the United States, or any land structure or shore area immediately adjacent to such waters; and

(2) protect the navigable waters and the resources therein from harm resulting from vessel or structure damage, destruction, or loss.

(b) Actions Authorized.—Actions authorized by subsection (a) include—

(1) establishing procedures, measures, and standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage, and movement on a structure (including the emergency removal, control, and disposition) of explosives or other dangerous articles and substances, including oil or hazardous material as those terms are defined in section 2101;

(2) prescribing minimum safety equipment requirements for a structure to assure adequate protection from fire, explosion, natural disaster, and other serious accidents or casualties;

(3) establishing water or waterfront safety zones, or other measures, for limited, controlled, or conditional access and activity when necessary for the protection of any vessel, structure, waters, or shore area; and

(4) establishing procedures for examination to assure compliance with the requirements prescribed under this section.

(c) State Law.—Nothing in this section, with respect to structures, prohibits a State or political subdivision thereof from prescribing higher safety equipment requirements or safety standards than those that may be prescribed by regulations under this section.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §401(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4258.)
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Bennie Gold, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,584.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante.' Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
### Part D—Promotional Programs
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9313]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application to support the export of 
approximately $112 million in U.S. rail hardening and straightening 
equipment and services to Russia. The financed amount associated with 
the U.S. export contract is expected to total approximately $88 
million. The project will result in an increase in Russian rail 
production by 200,000 metric tons per year. Available information 
indicates that the Russian production is for domestic consumption only. 
Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to 
economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 
947, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Angela Mariana Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-9313 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Vertrue Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
B. Duffy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 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 and 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/  James B. Duffy
-------------------
James B. Duffy
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Vertrue Incorporated
November 9, 2005











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 234 (Friday, December 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: PR21-7-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e)/:Revised Statement 
of Operating Conditions to be effective 11/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20201127-5000.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/2020.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-258-000.
    Applicants: Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Adelphia Tariff Update filing 
11-30-20 to be effective 12/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20201130-5030
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/14/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 30, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26707 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.146 What are my responsibilities to place production into marketable condition and to market production? ( a ) You must place gas, residue gas, and gas plant products in marketable condition and market the gas, residue gas, and gas plant products for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the lessor at no cost to the Federal government.
( b ) If you use gross proceeds under an arm's-length contract to determine royalty, you must increase those gross proceeds to the extent that the purchaser, or any other person, provides certain services that you normally are responsible to perform in order to place the gas, residue gas, and gas plant products in marketable condition or to market the gas.
Document

Exhibit 10.10


EXECUTION VERSION

FIRST AMENDMENT TO S-WAY PLATFORM AND PRODUCT SHARING CONTRACT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO S-WAY PLATFORM AND PRODUCT SHARING CONTRACT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of June 17, 2022, by the undersigned, pursuant to that certain S-Way Platform and Product Sharing Contract, dated as of April 9, 2020 (the “Agreement”), by and between Iveco S.p.A., a Società per Azioni organized and existing under the laws of Italy (“Iveco”) and Nikola Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Nikola”).
WHEREAS, Iveco and Nikola entered into that certain S-Way Platform and Product Sharing Contract, dated as of April 9, 2020 (the “Agreement”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.7 of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended upon the written agreement of Iveco and Nikola; and
WHEREAS, Iveco and Nikola desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned hereby agree as follows:
1.Section 1 – Definitions. Definitions under sections 1.14 (“Revenues”) and 1.15 (“Royalty”) of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety.
2.Section 6.2. Section 6.2 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.
3.Section 6.3. Section 6.3 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.
4.Section 6.4. Section 6.4 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.
5.Section 6.5. Section 6.5 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.
6.Annex A – Key Technology. Annex A to the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the Annex A – Key Technology attached hereto.
7.Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Delaware
8.Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall become effective as of the date first set forth above. 
9.Effect of this Amendment.  In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the Agreement and this Amendment, this Amendment shall prevail and control.  Except as specifically amended as set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
10.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.




4873-4556-5757.v1











[Remainder of page intentionally blank]



















4873-4556-5757.v1










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof.


						
	IVECO S.p.A.

		
	By:
	/s/ Luca Sra

	Name:
	Luca Sra

	Title:
	CEO









						
	NIKOLA CORPORATION

		
	By:
	/s/ Michael Lohscheller

	Name:
	Michael Lohscheller

	Title:
	President, Nikola Motor








SIGNATURE PAGE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO S-WAY PLATFORM AND PRODUCT SHARING CONTRACT


4873-4556-5757.v1










Annex A
First Amendment to S-Way Platform and Product Sharing Contract
4873-4556-5757.v1
SC1:5165751.3
§ 880.503 Maximum annual commitment and project account. ( a ) *Maximum Annual Commitment.* Where HUD is the contract administrator, the maximum annual amount that may be committed under the Contract is the total of the contract rents and utility allowances for all assisted units in the project. Where the PHA is the contract administrator, the maximum annual contribution that may be contracted for in the ACC is the total of the contract rents and utility allowances for all assisted units plus an administrative fee for the PHA as approved by HUD.
( b ) *Project Account.* ( 1 ) A project account will be established and maintained by HUD as a specifically identified and segregated account for each project. The account will be established out of the amounts by which the maximum annual commitment exceeds the amount actually paid out under the Contract or ACC each year. Payments will be made from this account for housing assistance payments (and fees for PHA administration, if appropriate) when needed to cover increases in contract rents or decreases in tenant rents and for other cost specifically approved by the Secretary.
( 2 ) Whenever a HUD-approved estimate of required annual payments under the Contract or ACC for a fiscal year exceeds the maximum annual commitment and would cause the amount in the project account to be less than 40 percent of the maximum, HUD will, within a reasonable period of time, take such additional steps authorized by Section 8(c)(6) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as may be necessary, to assure that payments under the Contract or ACC will be adequate to cover increases in Contract rents and decreases in tenant rents.
### Part II—Development of Competitive Markets
### **CHAPTER 5—PHILIPPINE ISLANDS**

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Philippine Independence

Independence of Philippine Islands recognized and American sovereignty withdrawn by Proc. No. 2695, eff. July 4, 1946, 11 F.R. 7517, 60 Stat. 1352, issued pursuant to section 1394 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, and set out under that section.