alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.160 Authorization of dental examinations. When a detailed report of dental examination is essential for a determination of eligibility for benefits, dental examinations may be authorized for the following classes of claimants or beneficiaries: ( a ) Those having a dental disability adjudicated as incurred or aggravated in active military, naval, or air service or those requiring examination to determine whether the dental disability is service connected.
( b ) Those having disability from disease or injury other than dental, adjudicated as incurred or aggravated in active military, naval, or air service but with an associated dental condition that is considered to be aggravating the basic service-connected disorder.
( c ) Those for whom a dental examination is ordered as a part of a general physical examination.
( d ) Those requiring dental examination during hospital, nursing home, or domiciliary care.
( e ) Those held to have suffered dental injury or aggravation of an existing dental injury, as the result of examination, hospitalization, or medical or surgical (including dental) treatment that had been awarded.
( f ) Veterans who are participating in a rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 are entitled to such dental services as are professionally determined necessary for any of the reasons enumerated in § 17.47(g). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1712(b); ch. 31)
( g ) Those for whom a special dental examination is authorized by the Under Secretary for Health or the Assistant Chief Medical Director for Dentistry.
( h ) Persons defined in § 17.93.
[13 FR 7162, Nov. 27, 1948, as amended at 21 FR 10388, Dec. 28, 1956; 23 FR 6503, Aug. 22, 1958; 27 FR 11424, Nov. 20, 1962; 29 FR 1463, Jan. 29, 1964; 30 FR 1789, Feb. 9, 1965; 32 FR 13817, Oct. 4, 1967; 33 FR 5300, Apr. 3, 1968; 35 FR 6586, Apr. 24, 1970; 49 FR 5617, Feb. 14, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21966, 21968, May 13, 1996; 79 FR 54616, Sept. 12, 2014]
§ 1.980 Scope. ( a ) In accordance with 5 CFR part 550, subpart K, the provisions set forth in §§ 1.980 through 1.995 implement VA's authority for the use of salary offset to satisfy certain debts owed to VA.
( b ) These regulations apply to offsets from the salaries of current employees of VA, or any other agency, who owe debts to VA. Offsets by VA from salaries of current VA employees who owe debts to other agencies shall be processed in accordance with procedures set forth in 5 CFR part 550, subpart K.
( c ) These regulations do not apply to debts or claims arising under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, the Social Security Act, the tariff laws of the United States, or to any case where collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for (e.g., travel advances in 5 U.S.C. 5705 and employee training expenses in 5 U.S.C. 4108) or prohibited by another statute.
( d ) These regulations do not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of an overpayment under 38 U.S.C. 5302, 5 U.S.C. 5584, or any other similar provision of law, or in any way questioning the amount or validity of a debt not involving benefits under the laws administered by VA by submitting a subsequent claim to the General Accounting Office in accordance with procedures prescribed by that office.
( e ) These regulations do not apply to any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's election of coverage or a change in coverage under a Federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less.
( f ) These regulations do not apply to a routine intra-agency adjustment of pay that is made to correct an overpayment of pay attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays in processing pay documents, if the overpayment occurred within the four pay periods preceding the adjustment and, at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and a point of contact for contesting such adjustment.
( g ) These regulations do not apply to any adjustment to collect a debt amounting to $50 or less, if at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the individual is provided with written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and a point of contact for contesting such adjustment.
( h ) These regulations do not preclude the compromise, suspension, or termination of collection action under the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS) (31 CFR parts 900-904) and VA regulations 38 CFR 1.930 through 1.944.
( i ) The procedures and requirements of these regulations do not apply to salary offset used to recoup a Federal employee's debt where a judgment has been obtained against the employee for the debt.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514)
[52 FR 1905, Jan. 16, 1987; 52 FR 23824, June 25, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 34980, Aug. 23, 1989; 69 FR 62202, Oct. 25, 2004]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.540 Consideration of responses in *ex parte* reexamination.

The failure to timely file or serve the documents set forth in § 1.530 or in § 1.535 may result in their being refused consideration. No submissions other than the statement pursuant to § 1.530 and the reply by the *ex parte* reexamination requester pursuant to § 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.

[65 FR 76776, Dec. 7, 2000]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
§ 85.7 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) Prior to beginning an investigation, NIOSH officers shall present their credentials to the owner, operator, or agent in charge at the place of employment, explain the nature, purpose, and scope of the investigation and the records specified in § 85.5 which they wish to review. Where the investigation is the result of a request submitted by an authorized representative of employees, a copy of the request shall be provided to the employer, except where the requester or any person authorizing the requester pursuant to § 85.3-1(e)(2) has indicated that NIOSH not reveal his name to the employer, in which case a summary of the basis for the request shall be provided to the employer.
( b ) At the commencement of an investigation, the employer should precisely identify information which can be obtained in the workplace or workplaces to be inspected as trade secrets. If the NIOSH officer has no clear reason to question such identification, such information shall not be disclosed except in accordance with the provisions of section 20(a)(6) and section 15 of the OSH Act or section 501(a)(11) of the FMSH Act. However, if NIOSH at any time questions such identification by an employer, not less than 15 days' notice to an employer shall be given of the intention to remove the trade secret designation from such information. The employer may within that period submit a request to the Director, NIOSH, to reconsider this intention and may provide additional information in support of the trade secret designation. The Director, NIOSH, shall notify the employer in writing of the decision which will become effective no sooner than 15 days after the date of such notice.
( c ) NIOSH officers are authorized to collect environmental samples and samples of substances or measurements of physical agents (including measurement of employee exposure by the attachment of personal sampling devices to employees with their consent), to take or obtain photographs related to the purpose of the investigation, employ other reasonable investigative techniques, including medical examinations of employees with the consent of such employees, and to question privately any employer, owner, operator, agent, or employee. The employer shall have the opportunity to review photographs taken or obtained for the purpose of identifying those which contain or might reveal a trade secret.
( d ) NIOSH officers shall comply with all safety and health rules and practices at the place of employment being investigated, and they shall provide and use appropriate protective clothing and equipment. In situations requiring specialized or unique types of protective equipment, such equipment shall be furnished by the employer.
( e ) The conduct of investigations shall be such as to preclude unreasonable disruption of the operations of the employer's establishment.
[37 FR 23640, Nov. 7, 1972, as amended at 45 FR 2653, Jan. 14, 1980; 49 FR 4739, Feb. 8, 1984]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00105-CR

Justin Murphy, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CR-07-200104, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Justin Murphy has filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he sought to collaterally attack his

2007 conviction for the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. The State has filed a 1

motion to dismiss, arguing that Murphy failed to timely file his notice of appeal.

In a criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed “within 30 days . . . after the day

the trial court enters an appealable order.” Here, the trial court signed its order denying habeas relief 2

on August 28, 2014. Murphy filed his notice of appeal from that order on February 10, 2015, well

The petition was filed while Murphy was facing charges for a second driving-while- 1

intoxicated offense.

 Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). 2
beyond the 30-day deadline. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and we have no option 3

but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the State’s motion and dismiss the

4

appeal.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 18, 2015

Do Not Publish

On January 27, 2015, Murphy filed a motion for rehearing of the trial court’s order denying 3

habeas relief, which the trial court denied in a written order dated February 9, 2015. We note

that the appealable order in this case is the order denying habeas relief, not the order denying the

motion for rehearing. See Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993);

see also Edwards v. State, No. 14-03-01381-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3728, at *3-4 (Tex. App.

—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 29, 2004, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“The

appellate timetables for appeals to this court are calculated from the date of sentencing or signing

of the appealable order, not the overruling of a motion for new trial or rehearing.”). 

See Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Slaton v. State,

4

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

2
Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

April, 1899.

Before Freedman, P. J., MacLean and Lbventritt, JJ.

#### Adolph Jablinowsky, Respondent, v. Adolph Yokel, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, fourth district, in favor of the plaintiff, for $77.50 damages and interest, with $17.50 costs and extra costs, making $95. Rosenthal *&*Rochmovitz, for .appellant,.Leopold W. Hamburger, for" respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

No opinion.
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

​

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2020-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

​

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

​

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

​

4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

​

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

​

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

​

​

| Date: January 26, 2023 | By:     | */s/ Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
|------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| ​                | ​ | Rajesh Kalathur                             |
| ​                | ​ | President of John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​ | (as Servicer)                               |

​

----
Amendment to Long-Term Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 STONERIDGE, INC. 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 Pursuant
to Section 12 (Amendments and Termination) of the Stoneridge, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (“the Plan”) the Board of Directors of Stoneridge, Inc. on May 12, 2003 amended the Plan as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 5(d) was deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

  
 (d) Buyout Provisions. The Committee may at any time buy out for a payment in cash, Shares, Deferred Shares or Restricted Shares an option
previously granted, based on such terms and conditions as the Committee shall establish and agree upon with the participant, provided that no such transaction under this provision (i) is to be made at other than the fair value of the option on the
date of the buyout, or (ii) involving a Section 16 Participant shall be structured or effected in a manner that would violate, or result in any liability on the part of the participant under, Section 16 of the Exchange Act or the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder. 
  

	2.	The remainder of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.127 [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN PATRICK MCSHEFFREY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-76-N) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Patrick McSheffrey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order closing his criminal and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) actions and imposing a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McSheffrey , No. CR-92-76-N (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 1997). We deny all of Appellant’s outstanding motions, including his motions to appoint counsel, for sanctions, to construe this case as a direct appeal, to clarify, for retention of the record, and to place this case in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Pauline Bennett, Appellant, *v.*The Budweiser Brewing Co., Respondent.

Appeal from-an order made in' summary proceedings in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, borough of Manhattan, fourth district, dismissing the landlord’s petition. '

Abraham H. Sarasohn, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

Leventritt, J.

This order must.be reversed. Upon the return of the precept the tenant moved to" dismiss the proceedings on the ground that ■ the petition failed to disclose that the petitioner, the agent of. the landlord, was duly authorized to institute the proceedings. The justice in granting the motion overlooked the statements of the petition wherein the petitioner averred “ that your petitioner is the agent for Pauline Bennett, who. is .the owner and landlord ” and “ that your petitioner is duly authorized to commence proceedings to dispossess said tenant and those claiming possession under said tenant.”

*806All the allegations required by section 2235- of the Code of ■ Civil Procedure are contained .in the petition, and hence the motion to dismiss, should have been denied.

Fkeedhan, P. J., and MacLean, J., concur.

Order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event..
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

March 26, 2015

Hon. Raymond L. Thomas Jr.

Kittleman, Thomas & Gonzalez, LLP

4900

- B N. 10th St.

McAllen, TX 78504

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Raul Medina

Attorney at Law

3101 N. Jackson Road

McAllen, TX 78501

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Ricardo P umarejo Jr.

Kittleman, Thomas & Gonzalez, PLLC

4900

- B N. 10th Street

McAllen, TX 78504

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Benigno Trey Martinez

Martinez, Barrera & Martinez

120 E. Van Buren

Brownsville, TX 78520

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. George M. Bishop

A ttorney At Law

4191 F.M. 1155 South

Chappell Hill, TX 77426

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 13

- 00552

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. C

- 361

- 11

- B

Style: Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D.

Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Intervenor’s motion to intervene and motion for rehearing in the above cause was

this day DENIED by this Court.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch