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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 61 

To remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public Law 105–384 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2017 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, 

Mr. MERKLEY, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public 

Law 105–384 and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY MANAGEMENT. 

4 Section 203 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to approve 

5 a governing international agreement between the United 

6 States and the Republic of Poland, and for other pur7 poses’’, approved November 13, 1998 (Public Law 105– 

8 384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note), is amended— 

9 (1) by striking subsection (i); and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 61 IS

1 (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as sub2 section (i). 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.35 Statute of limitations. ( a ) A claim must be filed in writing within 2 years after it accrues. It is deemed to be filed upon receipt by The Judge Advocate General, AFLOA/JACC, or a Staff Judge Advocate of the Air Force. A claim accrues when the claimant discovers or reasonably should have discovered the existence of the act that resulted in the claimed loss. The same rules governing accrual pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act should be applied with respect to the Military Claims Act. Upon receipt of a claim that properly belongs with another military department, the claim is promptly transferred to that department.
( b ) The statutory time period excludes the day of the incident and includes the day the claim was filed.
( c ) A claim filed after the statute of limitations has run is considered if the U.S. is at war or in an armed conflict when the claim accrues or if the U.S. enters a war or armed conflict after the claim accrues, and if good causes shows how the war or armed conflict prevented the claimant from diligently filing the claim within the statute of limitations. But in no case will a claim be considered if filed more than two years after the war or armed conflict ends.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83690, Nov. 22, 2016]
#### Central National Bank, Canajoharie, Plaintiff, v. Stanley T. Shafer et al., Defendants, Harry Moskowitz et al., Respondents, and E. T. Van Buren & Sons, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schoharie County which confirmed the Referee’s report in surplus money proceedings had in an action for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. The claim against the surplus moneys interposed by the respondents Moskowitz by virtue of their mortgage, which was second and subordinate to the mortgage of plaintiff foreclosed in this action, has been held prior and superior to the claim of appellant under its judgment. Upon a sale by respondents to the defendants Shafer of certain cattle and machinery, the real estate mortgage was given as a “ down payment ”, and to secure the balance of the purchase price a chattel mortgage was executed to respondents and assigned by them to Pioneer Credit Corporation, as was another chattel mortgage executed to them upon a later sale of additional cattle. Appellant contends that subsequently respondents repossessed and sold the cattle and machinery remaining subject to the chattel mortgages for sufficient to satisfj' not only the chattel mortgages but to pay, in large part or in full, the real estate mortgage as well. Respondents contend that defendants Shafer sold the chattels back to them in consideration of their agreement to pay to the credit corporation the amounts of the two chattel mortgages and to discharge all the unsecured indebtedness owed by the Shafers to respondents (the unsecured indebtedness being computed in respondents’ brief, from exhibits in evidence, as $5,181.55). There was no clear contradiction of the considerable volume of evidence that the transaction was a sale and not a repossession and, indeed, there is no indication that the chattel mortgages were no longer owned by the credit corporation or that respondents had any right to repossess under them. We find no merit in appellant’s additional contentions, which do not require discussion. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present ■— Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CAROLYN RUSIN, individually, and on 

behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:12-cv-01135

Hon. Edmond E. Chang

PARTIES’ AGREED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff Carolyn Rusin, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, 

moves this Court for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement with Defendant Chicago 

Tribune Company. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff submits a Supporting Memorandum of 

Law. Defendant supports this motion. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 30, 2013

s/ Maureen A. Salas

DOUGLAS M. WERMAN–dwerman@flsalaw.com

MAUREEN A. SALAS – msalas@flsalaw.com

DAVID E. STEVENS –dstevens@flsalaw.com

SARAH J. ARENDT- sarendt@flsalaw.com

Werman Law Office, P.C. 

77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 419-1008

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:12-cv-01135 Document #: 25 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:58
VI 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 603 

For the relief of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2017 

Mr. BENNET introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JEA4 NETTE VIZGUERRA-RAMIREZ. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez shall be 

8 eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjust9 ment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

10 permanent residence upon filing an application for 

11 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 603 IS

1 Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful 

2 permanent resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jeanette 

4 Vizguerra-Ramirez enters the United States before the fil5 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be con6 sidered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 

7 if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

8 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

9 (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act. 

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica14 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

15 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

16 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

17 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res18 idence to Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez, the Secretary of 

19 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur20 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num21 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

22 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

23 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

24 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

25 visas that are made available to natives of the country of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 603 IS

1 the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such Act (8 

2 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Jeanette Vizguerra-Rami6 rez shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

7 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

8 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:314
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:315
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:316
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:317
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:318
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:319
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:320
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:321
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:322
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:323
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:324
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:325
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:326
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:327
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:328
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:329
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:330
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:331
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:332
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:333
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:334
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:335
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:336
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:337
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:338
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:339
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:340
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:341
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:342
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:343
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:344
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:345
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:346
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:347
Case: 1:12-cv-01297 Document #: 63-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:348
(December 27, 1960)

#### Marcella Buchanan, Respondent, v. James F. Buchanan, Appellant.

. Motion by plaintiff to dismiss the appeal of defendant, taken by notice of appeal dated September 25, 1960, from an order of the Special Term denying him visitation rights. Motion granted; appeal dismissed. While the appeal purports to be taken from an order, no order has yet been signed or entered on the decision of the Special Term sought to be reviewed. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### §8317. Effect on regulations

A regulation issued under a provision of law repealed by subsection (a) shall remain in effect until the Secretary issues a regulation under section 8303(b) or 8315 of this title that supersedes the earlier regulation.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10418(c), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 509.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subsection (a), referred to in text, means section 10418(a) of title X of Pub. L. 107–171, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 507, which repealed sections 429, 2260, and 2260a of this title, section 1306 of Title 19, Customs Duties, sections 102 to 105, 111, 112, 113, 114 to 114d–1, 114e to 114h, 115 to 131, 134 to 135b, and 612 to 614 of Title 21, Food and Drugs, sections 3901 and 3902 of Title 46, Shipping, and provisions set out as a note under section 129a of Title 21.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
### §411a. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–624, title XXV, §2514(d), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4075

Section, acts Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 301, 35 Stat. 1053; Mar. 4, 1917, ch. 179, 39 Stat. 1157, related to contents, issuance, and approval by Secretary of Agriculture of monthly crop report.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 59 

To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2017 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hearing Protection 

5 Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF SILENCERS AND FIREARMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5845(a) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘(7) any 

9 silencer’’ and all that follows through ‘‘; and (8)’’ and in10 serting ‘‘and (7)’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 59 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the en3 actment of this Act. 

4 (2) TRANSFERS.—In the case of the tax im5 posed by section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code 

6 of 1986, the amendment made by this section shall 

7 apply with respect to transfers after January 9, 

8 2017. 

9 SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SILENCERS. 

10 Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

11 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(f) FIREARM SILENCERS.—A person acquiring or 

13 possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with chapter 

14 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as 

15 meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the 

16 National Firearms Act (as in effect on the day before the 

17 date of the enactment of this subsection) with respect to 

18 such silencer.’’. 

19 SEC. 4. PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE LAWS IN RELA20 TION TO FIREARM SILENCERS. 

21 Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is 

22 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwith23 standing the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a 

24 political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of law25 fully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:38 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S59.IS S59

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 59 IS

1 porting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or for2 eign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a 

3 marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement with 

4 respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or ef5 fect.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### 1332.404 Exclusions.

Advance payments may be authorized for items listed in FAR 32.404(a).
**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 Dynamic MaterialsCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Yvon Pierre Cariou, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

October 31, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/  Yvon Pierre Cariou                |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Yvon Pierre Cariou                     |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | of Dynamic Materials  Corporation      |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
### §7487. Enforcement

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may issue an enforcement order to restrain or prevent any person from violating an order or regulation issued under this subchapter and may assess a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation of the enforcement order, after an opportunity for an administrative hearing, if the Secretary determines that the administration and enforcement of the order and this subchapter would be adequately served by such a procedure.

#### (b) Jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain any person from violating, an order or regulation issued under this subchapter.

#### (c) Referral to Attorney General

A civil action authorized to be brought under this section shall be referred to the Attorney General for appropriate action.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §578, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1082.)
S. 7 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of non-excess property 

of the Administration. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NASA Enhanced Use Leasing 

Extension Act of 2018’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASES OF NONEXCESS PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION. 

Section 20145(g) of title 51, United States Code, is amended 

by striking ‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2019’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F'OR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MARISELI GOMEZ (now known as MARISELI )

GOMEZ BELL), Individually, and on Behalf of )

All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A

national banking association,

l:12-cv-1274

Judge Thomas Durkin

Defendant.

ORDER ON

CLASS COUNSEL'S PETITION F'OR REIMBURSEMENT

OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

FROM THE SETTLEMENT FUND

And now, upon consideration of the Class Counsel's Petition For Reimbursement

Of Attorneys' Fees And Litigation Expenses From The Settlement Fund, and with no

Person filing an opposition to the Petitioru the Court hereby grants the Petition in part

and Orders as follows:

1. Class Counsel is awarded $458,435.85 from the Settlement Fund as their

attorneys'fees; and

Class Counsel is awarded$1,6,639.L5 from the Settlement Fund as

reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.

BY THE COURT,

Date: r 

'J 

a, ),, The Honorable Thomas Durkin

U.S. District Court ]udge

Case: 1:12-cv-01274 Document #: 138 Filed: 07/22/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1766
#### In the Matter of Wade F. Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated June 23, 1977, which adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Martuscello, J. P., dissents and votes to reverse the order and dismiss the petition, with the following memorandum:

There was insufficient evidence to support the finding of the Family Court that appellant participated in an act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree. On the morning of October 13, 1976, the 12-year-old victim arrived at school, at which time he was approached by Christopher C., who demanded his bus pass and pulled out a razor. Appellant and another boy then approached and appellant stood behind the victim as he handed his bus pass to Christopher. The victim testified that appellant never touched him, nor said' anything. Further, appellant denied that he was acting in concert with Christopher. Appellant’s mere presence did not establish his complicity (see *People v Ligouri,*284 NY 309, 318). Nor was there any evidence that, appellant intentionally "blocked” the victim’s avenue of escape.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Karl J. Pfeiffer, Respondent, v. Glens Falls Insurance Company et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Employer and carrier appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which authorized surgery for a left inguinal hernia. Claimant testified that on September 22, 1960, while standing on a ladder and stretching and reaching to clean an overhead lighting fixture, he felt a sharp pain in his groin like “a bundle coming out” and, “something snapped, come out ”. The board has found that this incident was an accidental injury incurred on that date. Claimant had a previous left inguinal hernia which had been surgically repaired in 1950, and appellants seem to contend that for that reason they cannot be charged with a left inguinal hernia in I960. However, claimant testified that he experienced no trouble at the site of the hernia since the repair in 1950, and he is corroborated by his attending physician who says that he found no hernia in 1959. Because claimant had several other physical difficulties in the interval and because appellants assert that he complained of the hernia region after 1950, it is contended that claimant merely suffered a recurrence without an accident. In effect this is simply an attack upon claimant’s credibility. At most a question of fact was involved with adequate evidence to support the board’s determination. Appellants also raise the question of failure to give the statutory notice under section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The board excused this with a finding that actual notice to the employer was given within 30 days, which is obviously true because the employer filed a report of injury within 30 days. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.