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

#### JOHN ANDERSON, PETITIONER, v. HOAGLAND & GREEN, RESPONDENT.

This is a case coming on for determination under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation act, in which the facts briefly stated are as follows:

The petitioner, prior to and on May 7th, 1927, was in the employ of the respondent as a laborer in the lumbering business at a wage of $24. At about ten A. m. on that date, while working with logs.in the woods, he stepped on a piece of bark causing his foot to slip. In the strenuous effort to save himself from falling, it is claimed that his trousers and overalls were drawn against him so violently as to bruise or otherwise injure his testicles. A few minutes thereafter the resulting pain became severe, and on May 24th he was obliged to discontinue work. An operation followed, and the petitioner was in the hospital nine days, incurring a bill of $136.

The employer was notified of the accident May 24th, 1927. There was an informal hearing at which the referee determined there was a temporary disability of five and six-sevenths-weeks. At the formal trial, Dr. Cummins testified the injured is suffering from a hydrocele. Dr. Hunt, also for the petitioner, testified the petitioner suffers from traumatic hydrocele and traumatic orchitis, and that if due to a disease, the condition would not have developed so suddenly. Other lay witnesses testified that the petitioner previously was a. *725strong man doing heavy work. The doctor for the respondent testified to double hydrocele, and possibly a mild orchitis, but he was of the opinion that had these resulted from trauma as stated by the petitioner, prostration would have followed at once, lie also was of the opinion that the condition is a temporary one which can be relieved by treatment or operation.

In deciding this case these elements must be taken Into consideration. Could the conditions found by the doctors bo caused by simple pressure of the clothing on the affected parts? Is the orchitis or the hydrocele due to infection, tubercular or other disease? Is the present condition due to aggravation of pre-existing latent disease? Is the present disability temporary or permanent in character ?

A study of the testimony presented at the hearing, with the above elements in mind, leads me to the conclusion that an award should be rendered on the basis of permanent partial disability, saving to the respondent, however, the provisions of paragraph 20 (e) of the act, relative to medical and surgical treatment.

*:\i*:¡í íj; >;« *s\t*í¡;

W. E. Stubbs, *Deputy Gommissioner.*
SUPREME COURT.

#### George West and another agt. John T. Lee and another.

*Trial Term,*

*December,*1875.

*Promissory notes—indorser—when discharged.*

The provisions of the act of May 22, 1873, that promissory notes payable on Sunday should be deemed to be due and payable on the business day next succeeding, is abrogated by the amendment of May twenty-nine of the same year'.

Bills and notes, when days of grace are given, and the third day falls on Sunday, are still payable on the previous Saturday, according to the custom of merchants.

Action tried before the court without a jury.

*Walsh, Halbert & Eckerson,*for plaintiff.

*E. P. Wilder,*for defendant.

Van Vorst, *J.*

— The action is to recover of the indorser the amount of a promissory note. The note fell due on Sunday, March fourteen. It was not presented for payment to the maker until Monday following. It is now objected on the part of the defendant, that the demand should have been, made on the Saturday' previous, and that the indorser is discharged by the failure to demand payment on that day.

In *The*Grocers’ *Bank*agt. *McKinley,*tried in April, 1874, in this court, I had occasion to examine the acts of 1873, to which I am now referred, relating to the demand of payment of promissory notes falling due on *“*Sunday ” or “ any holiday.”

*314Such examination showed that the act of May 22, 1873 *(Session Laws,page*891), is amended by the act of May twenty-nine of the same year *(page*994), by the substitution of a new section in the place of the second section of .the act first above named. The amendment consists exclusively in leaving out the words *“*on Sunday or.”

By this amendment the provision contained in the act of May twenty-two, declaring that notes payable on Sunday should be deemed to be due and payable on the business day next succeeding the day of the maturity, is abrogated. Bills and notes, when days of grace are allowable, and the third day falls on Sunday, are still payable on the previous Saturday, according to the custom of merchants. *(Salter*agt. *Bush,*20 *Wend., 205; Edwards on Bills, page*529).

There should be judgment for defendant.
#### § 54.01-17 Pressure vessel for human occupancy (PVHO).

Pressure vessels for human occupancy (PVHOs) must meet the requirements of subpart B (Commercial Diving Operations) of part 197 of this chapter.

[CGD 76-009, 43 FR 53683, Nov. 16, 1978]
North Atlantic Planning Area

Undiscovered Technically Recoverable

Resources by Water Depth Range

25 mi

50 mi

75 mi

100 mi

200 m

800 m

1600 m

2400 m

September, 2008

200 m

Note:

Resource numbers in the

Atlantic area are estimates

based on1970s-1980s seismic

data and limited exploratory

wells. The numbers for these

bands in the Atlantic area, while

based on the best available

data, are highly speculative.

ME

VT

NH

MA

CT RI

NY

NJ

25 mi

50 mi

75 mi

100 mi

Water Depth Gas (Tcf) UTRR Oil (Bbbl) UTRR

0-200 meters 4.20 - 17.28 0.33 - 2.17

200-800 meters 0.51 - 2.27 0.05 - 0.32

800-1600 meters 0.42 - 1.84 0.04 - 0.25

1600-2400 meters 0.73 - 4.12 0.06 - 0.42

>2400 meters 1.32 - 6.66 0.10 - 0.64

Resource values are in trillion cubic feet of gas (Tcf)

and billion barrels of oil (Bbbl).

Resource Estimates Based on MMS 2006 Assessment Data
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 Annual Report of Interlink Electronics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. Michael Thoben, III, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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/ E. MICHAEL THOBEN, III                     
|E. Michael Thoben, III                         
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|April 30, 2007
# C_2014395EN.01003401.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission

(Case T-669/11) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document emanating from Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure - Article 4(4) and (5) - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Refusal of access - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Partial access - Overriding public interest))

(2014/C 395/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy) (represented by: initially, V. Foerster and T. Pahl, and, subsequently, V. Foerster and E. George, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2011 refusing to allow the applicants access to the observations submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission on 7 July 2011 in the context of EU Pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

---
#### § 520.91 OMB control number assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Commission has received OMB approval for this collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In accordance with the Act, agencies are required to display a currently valid control number. The valid control number for this collection of information is 3072-0064.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382 

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts 

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford 

 Defendant. 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 North Old Woodward Ave, Ste 

320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

STIPULATION TO 

EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO FILE 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL 

_____________________________ 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties 

that the Defendant, PAUL NICOLETTI, be granted an additional 28 days in which 

to file his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c). 

/s/Craig Weier w/permission PJS 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

/s/Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 N Old Woodward Ave, Ste 320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 138 filed 05/22/19 PageID.1310 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382 

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford 

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI, 

 Defendant. 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 North Old Woodward Ave, Ste 

320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

ORDER 

 Upon the filing and reading of the above Stipulation, and the Court being fully 

advised in the premises; 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant, Paul J. Nicoletti, be granted an 

additional 28 days in which to file his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 29(c). Said motion will be timely filed on or before June 18, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 The Honorable Victoria Roberts 

 United States District Court Judge 

Entered: 5/22/19 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 138 filed 05/22/19 PageID.1311 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOREY BERNAL CHAMPION,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00381-FL-1)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and 

Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A federal grand jury indicted Morey Bernal Champion 

for possession of a firearm after having previously been 

convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment 

exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

(2006). Champion filed a motion to dismiss the indictment that 

the district court denied. Champion then entered a guilty plea 

to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his 

motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Champion to fifty-one 

months of imprisonment and Champion now appeals. Finding no 

error, we affirm.

On appeal, Champion argues that the district court 

erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We 

review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an 

indictment de novo. United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 310

(4th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see United States v. 

Thornton, 554 F.3d 443, 445 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing whether 

state felony offense is a crime of violence de novo). 

Champion argues that he was legally innocent of 

violating § 922(g)(1) because his prior conviction for 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana was not 

punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. While 

Champion’s argument is concededly foreclosed by United States v. 

Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005), he argues that the 
3

subsequent decisions in United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 337

(2008), and United States v. Pruitt, 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 

2008), have undermined this court’s holding in Harp. We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal 

authorities and conclude that our holding in Harp is consistent 

with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez. Further, to the 

extent Pruitt may be inconsistent with Harp, decisions by our 

sister circuits are simply not binding upon this court.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Ebenezer Keeler, *Appellant, v.*Israel W. Baldwin, *as Commissioner, etc., Respondent*.

Order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Mem. by

Haight, J.
#### § 34.20-25 Foam monitor capacity—T/ALL.

The capacity of each foam monitor on ships that have a keel laying date on or after January 1, 1975, must be at least 3 liters per minute per square meter (.073 gallons per minute per square foot) of cargo area protected by that monitor.

[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3846, Jan. 26, 1976]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending November 8, 2008

|Filer                             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                
|--------------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|CORNERSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A1         | Cornerstone Financial Corporation, Mount Laurel, NJ, to form a bank holding company by acquiring Cornerstone Bank, Mount Laurel, NJ. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                        | Not available
|Federal Register:                 | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
This document is copyrighted and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder.
§ 45.137 Cargo ports. ( a ) Unless otherwise authorized by the Commandant, the lower edge of any opening for cargo, personnel, machinery access, or similar opening in the side of a ship must be above a line that is drawn parallel to the freeboard deck at side and has as its lowest point the upper edge of the uppermost loadline.
( b ) The number of cargo ports in the sides of a ship must be— ( 1 ) No more than the minimum necessary for working the ship; and
( 2 ) Approved by the Commandant.
---

---

# EXHIBIT 8.1

# Subsidiaries

|                                           |                       
|------------------------------------------ | ----------------------
|
|
|
|
|ENTITY                                     | PLACE OF INCORPORATION
|                                          
|Cimatron Gibbs LLC*                        | United States         
|Cimatron Technologies, Inc.                | United States         
|Cimatron Technologies, Inc.                | Canada                
|Cimatron GmbH                              | Germany               
|Cimatron Sarl                              | France                
|Cimatron UK Ltd.                           | United Kingdom        
|Microsystem Srl                            | Italy                 
|Cimatron Japan K.K                         | Japan                 
|Cimatron Technologies (P) Ltd              | India                 
|Cimatron (Beijing) Technology Co. Ltd.     | China                 
|Cimatron (Guangzhou) Technology Co. Ltd.** | China                 
|Korea Cimatron Technologies Co. Ltd.       | Korea                 

* Cimatron Gibbs LLC is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Cimatron Technologies, Inc. (US) and was incorporated on December 20,
2007 under the name of Nortamic LLC. On January 1, 2008 Gibbs System, Inc. merged with and
into Cimatron Gibbs LLC, with Cimatron Gibbs LLC being the surviving entity.

** We hold only 60% of the shares of
this joint venture.



---

---
N. Y. COMMON PLEAS.

#### Wm. B. Astor agt. Rachel Palache.

*Special Term,*

*May,*1875.

*Extra allowance under section*309 *of the Code.*

An offer to allow judgment under section 385 of the Code in a mortgage foreclosure suit, will cut off the plaintiff’s right to an extra- allowance under section 309 of the Code.

A tender will not cut off the right to such allowance, the statute applying only to actions at law.

Application for extra allowance, under section 309 of Code, in foreclosure suits.

J. F. Daly, J.

An offer to allow judgment under section 385 of the Code may be made in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property *(Bettis*agt. *Goodwill,*32 *How. Pr. R.,*137; *Penfield*agt. James, 56 *N. Y.,*659); and such an offer will cut off the plaintiff’s right to an extra allowance under section 309 of the Code *(Penfield*agt. *James,*56 *N. Y.,*659). The offer must be in writing, and made at least ten days before the trial or verdict *(Pomeroy*agt. Hulin, 7 *How. Pr. R.,*161; *Walker*agt. Johnson, 8 *id.,*240). In the present case defendant served no written offer, but made a tender of the amount due on the mortgage,-with costs to date, while the reference to compute amount due is pending. A tender will not cut off the right to an extra allowance under section 309 of the Code in a foreclosure suit, the statute applying only to actions at law (2 *R. S.,*553; *N. Y. Fire Co.*agt. *Burrell,*9 *How. Pr. R.,*398 ; *Barton*agt. *Cleveland,*16 *id.,*364).

*232On the merits of plaintiff’s application for an extra allowance : The plaintiff is certainly entitled to an allowance, a great part of the labor for which it was intended to be compensation having been performed. As, in respect of the other allowance *(sec.*308 *of the Code),*a difference of one-half in the amount allowed is made in cases where the action is settled before judgment, there would seem to be reason for making a distinction on that ground in this case; and I therefore order an extra allowance of one and a quarter per cent, under section 309 of the Code, on the whole amount of principal and interest; this being in addition to the half rates allowed by section 308.
#### § 4.01-1 Scope of regulation.

The regulations in this part govern the reporting of marine casualties, the investigation of marine casualties and the submittal of reports designed to increase the likelihood of timely assistance to vessels in distress.

[CGD 85-015, 51 FR 19341, May 29, 1986]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARSHAY CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS, L.L.C.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-12367

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Marshay Chapman recently filed a four-count complaint, followed by an amended

complaint, alleging the following causes of action: Count I, violations of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964; Count II, violations of 42 U.S.C.§ 1981; Count III, violations of Michigan’s

Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act; and Count IV, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Although Counts I, II and IV are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the

allegations presented in Count III are based solely on state law. The parties to this action are not

diverse. Therefore, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

claim to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 282 U.S.

715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Count III is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 7, 2015

5:15-cv-12367-JCO-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/07/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 26
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

this date, August 7, 2015, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-12367-JCO-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/07/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 27