alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### SAM DI MARCO, PETITIONER, v. LETTIERE AND BELLEZZA COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

For the petitioner, *Alex B. Desevo.*

For the respondent, *McDermott, Enright & Carpenter,*by *Carl 8. Kuebler.*

The petition alleged that the petitioner sustained an injury in an accident which occurred on September 30th, 1927, on Grand street, Jersey City, which accident occurred when he was lifting a concrete mixer and let it go so that it struck him on his head. It is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner sustained an accident on said date while in its employment and that the petitioner stepped to the side of the concrete mixer for a drink of water; that he did not notice the loading hopper in the air, and as he walked back to his work the hopper struck him on his head.

The respondent admits on the record in this case that the petitioner sustained an injury to his left ear which has resulted in total loss of hearing, and that the respondent agreed to pay the petitioner the amount of the informal award as made in this case, to wit, thirteen and two-seyenths weeks for temporary compensation and forty weeks for loss of hearing of the left ear.

*278The respondent further admits that the petitioner has a. loss of vision in the left eye equal to about five per cent., but denies that the petitioner is suffering at the present time from any other injuries as a result of said accident and claims that the scar on his head which is about ten inches long was the result of a laceration which was not deep; that there was no fracture and that there are no neurologic symptoms present.

The petitioner is satisfied with the respondent’s contention so far as the loss of hearing and the loss of vision is concerned. He claims that there is also a neurological disturbance.

I have listened to the testimony of Dr. Botti produced by the petitioner who testifies that there is evidence of neurological disturbance, and that the man is disabled to the extent of twenty-five per cent, of total disability, including everything.

I have also listened to the testimony of Dr. William J. Arlitz for the respondent, who testifies that the man’s disability in his opinion is limited to the loss of hearing and diminution of vision and slight structural changes caused by the laceraton of the scalp, and that there are no neurological symptoms, and that in his opinion twelve and one-half per cent, of total would he a liberal estimate of the petitioner’s disability.

I find that the disability of the petitioner is twelve and one-half per cent, of total which includes the loss of hearing and loss of vision.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Charles E. Corbin,

*Deputy Commissioner.*
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) PROMULGATED

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Thomas A. Spanier, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Digital Video Systems, Inc., asamended;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: May 2, 2005 

							/s/ Thomas A. Spanier			
						Thomas A. Spanier 

						Chairman of the Board and 

						Chief Executive Officer (Principal

						Executive Officer)
#### § 201.71 Commencement of proceedings.

Formal proceedings may be commenced with respect to any phase of an application for Government aid or other relief, the processing of which by statute requires a public hearing. The Administration may, in its discretion, also direct the holding of a hearing not required by statute for any purpose authorized in the statutes it administers.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN ALLEN ALEXANDER, #182285, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 15-cv-11364 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

 

BONITA HOFFNER, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND 

HIS HABEAS PETITION AND SETTING DEADLINES 

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is before the Court 

on Petitioner’s motion to amend his habeas petition to add a new claim challenging 

the validity of his sentence, which he asserts was recently exhausted in the state 

courts. Petitioner has included his supplemental sentencing claim in his motion and 

supporting brief. The Court has discretion to allow amendment of the habeas 

petition. See Rule 11, Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a). Having considered the matter, the Court concludes that Petitioner should be 

allowed to amend/supplement his petition. Respondent shall file an answer to the 

supplemental sentencing claim and any additional relevant state court materials by 

Case 2:15-cv-11364-MFL-EAS ECF No. 12, PageID.997 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 2
September 29, 2017. Petitioner shall then have until November 17, 2017 to file a 

reply to that answer, if desired. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 19, 2017 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on July 19, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

Case 2:15-cv-11364-MFL-EAS ECF No. 12, PageID.998 Filed 07/19/17 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARK H. BONNER,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2021-1817

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-6927, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

MARK H. BONNER, Ave Maria School of Law, Naples, 

FL, argued for claimant-appellant.

 BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by RETA EMMA BEZAK, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA 

BURKE, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, ANDREW 

Case: 21-1817 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2021
J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

December 14, 2021

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1817 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2021
FOURTH DEPARTMENT.

GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1874.

#### Rosecrance v. Hollister.

*Reference*— *when findings of fact will not be disturbed.*

Where the question is one of fact and there is abundant evidence to sustain the findings of a referee, the findings will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment dismissing the complaint entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought in Genesee county by Daniel Bosecrance and George H. Bobertson, receiver, etc., of Marcus Hollister, against Marcus Hollister and another to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent.

*Geo. Bowen,*for appellants.

*William, Tyrrell,*for respondents.

Gilbert, J.

The question was wholly one of fact and the court declined to interfere on the ground mentioned in the head-note.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 32.20-20 Liquid level gaging—T/ALL.

On tankships, the construction or conversion of which is started on or after July 1, 1951, a method for determining the level of the liquid in a cargo tank without opening ullage holes, cargo hatches, or Butterworth plates, shall be provided on all tankships certificated for the carriage of Grade A liquids: *Provided,* That ullage holes fitted with sounding pipes tightly secured to the underside of the tank tops, open at the bottom, and extending to within 18 inches or less of the bottom of the tank shall be considered as complying with the foregoing requirement.
#### § 167.60-5 Period of time for which valid.

A certificate of inspection for any period less than one year shall not be issued, but nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the revocation or suspension of a certificate of inspection in case such process is authorized by law.
#### ARTHUR M. KETSCHKE, PROSECUTOR, v. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF WOODBRIDGE, RESPNDENTS.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before Justices Black, Campbell and Case.

Por the prosecutor, *Wright, Vander Burgh & McCarthy.*

Por the respondent, *Stanton T. Lawrence.*

Per Curiam.

The prosecutor having filed and submitted no brief within the time limited by the rules of this court, nor at any time, the writ of *certiorari*is dismissed, with costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.141-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of plastic piping systems. Plastic piping systems include the pipe, fittings, system joints, method of joining, and any internal or external liners, coverings, and coatings required to comply with the performance criteria of this subpart.
Ginger Vagenas (AIR-2) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

To Docket ID No. EPA-R09-0AR-2013-0686: 

Harold Peterson 

7911 Westhaven Drive SW Apt 3 

Huntsville, AL 35802-1431 

April14, 2014 

Good morning. My name is Harold Peterson, and I am an environmental scientist specializing in air 

pollution. I am writing to support this docket as written. 

The Phoenix-Mesa area appears to only be in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, not the 

2008 standard. ·Therefore the area should still be considered in ozone nonattainment, which appears to 

be the case. However, I am able to support the more limited designation of 1997 8-hour ozone 

attainment. I would encourage the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to continue working 

to attain the 2008 standard as well. It was also right to contact the Pima/Maricopa Indians within the 

Phoenix metro to discuss this proposal. 

I have no further comments regarding this docket. 

Sincerely, 

Harold Peterson
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel HH-90 Alcohol Education Project Grants (R25).                    

*Date:*                         July 26, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, Bethesda, MD.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Lorraine Gunzerath PhD, MBA, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Office of  Extramural Activities, Extramural Project Review Branch, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3043, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, 301-443-2369,                         *lgunzera@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career, Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.892, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: May 11, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2444 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 298.10 Citizenship. ( a ) *Applicability.* Before you receive a legal or beneficial interest in a Vessel financed under Title XI of the Act which is operating in or will be operated in the U.S. coastwise trade, you and any other Person, (including the shipowner and any bareboat charterer), must establish your United States citizenship, within the definition of “Citizen of the United States” in § 298.2.
( b ) *Prior to Letter Commitment.* Before we issue the Letter Commitment, you and any Person identified in paragraph (a) of this section, who is required to establish United States citizenship must establish United States citizenship in the form and manner stated in 46 CFR part 355.
( c ) *Commitment Closing.* ( 1 ) Within 10 days before every Commitment Closing, unless we waive this requirement for good cause, you and all Persons identified with the project who have previously established United States citizenship in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, must submit pro forma Supplemental Affidavits of Citizenship which we have approved for Closing as to form and substance, and
( 2 ) On the date of the Closing, three
( 3 ) executed copies of Supplemental Affidavits of Citizenship that: ( i ) Show evidence of the continuing United States citizenship of the Persons in paragraph (a) of this section; and
( ii ) Bear the date of the Closing.
( d ) *Additional information.* If we request additional material essential to clarify or support evidence of U.S. citizenship, you, the Obligor, or any Person identified in paragraph (a) of this section must submit the additional information.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2133-0012)
### NU MBE RS 13- 08- 0019 5-C V a nd 13- 08- 0049 2-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ D AV ID JO H N S EC OR D , D .P .M ., Ap pe l l an t, v . LAR RY Y EAT ER, Appe lle e.

_ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On A pp ea l from th e C ou nty C ou rta t L aw

N o. 4 of N ue ce s C ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ch ief Ju stice Va lde z an d Ju stice s Yañ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam App ellantperfecte d inte rlocuto ry app eals f rom o rders ent ered bythe Cou nty C ourt a tL a w No
. 4 o f Nu e c e s Co u n ty, T e xa s , in c a u s e n u m b e r 0 3 -6 2 2 3 1 -4
. T h e p a rt ie s h a ve filed a j oin t moti on todi smi ss t h e a ppeal s o n g ro unds that the p arti es hav e reache d an2

agreem entto settle and comp romise their dif feren ces. T he p arties request th at th is Court dism iss the ap pea ls. T he Cou rt, h aving co nside red the d ocum ent s o n f ile a nd the jo int mo tion to dismiss the a p p e a ls, i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 1(a). Th e joint motio n to dismiss is g rante d, an d the app eals are h ereb y DISMISSED. In ac cordance w it h the ag re ement of the par ti es, costsare t axed ag ain st the p arty i ncur ri ng same. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d)
. Hav ing di smi ss ed th e appea l at t he par ti es’ req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.
PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 12t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 09.
# C_2011311EN.01002002.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Thomas Karl-Heinz Kerkhoff

(Case C-408/11)

2011/C 311/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Münster (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Thomas Karl-Heinz Kerkhoff

Staatsanwaltschaft Münster

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to refuse, on a long-term basis, to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State, if the holder previously had his driving licence withdrawn on the territory of the first Member State, without a separate period of suspension before a new licence is issued having been imposed or a period of suspension imposed having expired?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast); OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

1

---
# C_2012200EN.01001502.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Asa v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL)

(Case T-110/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FEMIFERAL - Earlier national word mark Feminatal and earlier national figurative mark feminatal - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 200/30

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asa sp. z o.o. (Głubczyce, Poland) (represented by: M. Chimiak, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Merck sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 182/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Merck sp. z o.o. and Asa sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Asa sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Asa sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
# C_2016222EN.01003501.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/35

---

Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — GDC Engineering v Commission

(Case T-614/11) (1)

(2016/C 222/43)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---