alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 183.330 Stability test. ( a ) *Flotation standard.* When the conditions prescribed in § 183.320 (a), (d) through (g) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are met, the boat must float in fresh, calm water as follows: ( 1 ) The angle of heel does not exceed 30 degrees from the horizontal.
( 2 ) Any point on either the forward or aft reference area is above the surface of the water.
( 3 ) The reference depth at the reference area that is opposite the reference area that is above the surface of the water is 12 inches or less.
( b ) *Quantity of weight used.* Load the boat with quantity of weight that, when submerged, is equal to the sum of the following: ( 1 ) One-half the quantity of weight required by § 183.320(b)(1).
( 2 ) The quantity of weight required by § 183.320(b)(2).
( c ) *Placement of quantity of weight: starboard side.* Place the quantity of weight required by paragraph (b) of this section in the boat so that: ( 1 ) The quantity of weight required by § 183.320(b)(2) is positioned in accordance with § 183.320(c); and
( 2 ) One-half the quantity of weight required by § 183.320(b)(1) is uniformly distributed over a distance along the outboard perimeter of the starboard side of the passenger carrying area that is equal to at least 30 percent of the length of the passenger carrying area so that the center of gravity of the quantity of weight is located within the shaded area illustrated in Figure 12, the center of gravity of the amount of weight placed on the floor of the boat is at least 4 inches above the floor and the center of gravity of the amount of weight placed on a seat is at least 4 inches above the seat. The location and dimensions of the shaded area are as follows: ( i ) The shaded area is centered at the mid-length of the passenger carrying area;
( ii ) The length of the shaded area is equal to 70 percent of the length of the passenger carrying area; and
( iii ) The breadth of the shaded area is 6 inches from: ( a ) For weights placed on the floor, the outboard perimeter of the passenger carrying area; and
( b ) For weights placed on a seat, a vertical line inside the passenger carrying area as illustrated in Figure 13.
( d ) *Placement of quantity of weight: port side.* The quantity of weight required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section is placed along the port side of the passenger carrying area in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
§ 160.300 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to crewmembers on the following vessels in the navigable waters of the United States en route to a U.S. port or place of destination or at a U.S. port or place: ( 1 ) A foreign vessel engaged in commercial service, and
( 2 ) A U.S. vessel engaged in commercial service and coming from a foreign port or place of departure.
( b ) This subpart also applies to the operators of the vessels listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 161.10 Services. To enhance navigation and vessel safety, and to protect the marine environment, a VTS may issue advisories, or respond to vessel requests for information, on reported conditions within the VTS area, such as: ( a ) Hazardous conditions or circumstances;
( b ) Vessel congestion;
( c ) Traffic density;
( d ) Environmental conditions;
( e ) Aids to navigation status;
( f ) Anticipated vessel encounters;
( g ) Another vessel's name, type, position, hazardous vessel operating conditions, if applicable, and intended navigation movements, as reported;
( h ) Temporary measures in effect;
( i ) A description of local harbor operations and conditions, such as ferry routes, dredging, and so forth;
( j ) Anchorage availability; or
( k ) Other information or special circumstances.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30631 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RODERICK WASHINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:08

- CR

- 188

- 4

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roderick Washington appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court originally sentenced Washington to 126 months of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to po ssess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Following Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30631 Document: 00513833273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017No. 16

- 30631

2 the district court denied Washington ’s motion for a reduction to 120 months of imprisonment.
We review a district court’s decision whet her to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). If the district court bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erron eous assessment of the evidence, it commi ts an abuse of
discretion. Id. The district court does not abuse its discretion when the record
shows that the court duly considered the motion as a whole and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, even implicitly. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). The parties agree that Washington was eligible for a reduction. However, they dispute whether the court’s denial was an abuse of discretion. In this case, the court specificall y stated that it considered the § 3553(a ) sentencing factors and “all of the information submitted,” including Washington’s presentence report

. To the extent Washington argues that the court did not provide adequate reasons for its denial, “ a court is not required to state findings of facts and con clusion [s] of law when denying a § 3582 (c)(2)
motion.” United States v. Cooley , 590 F. 3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2009 ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the record reveals that the
district court gave due consideration to the motion as a whole and to the § 3553(a) factors , it did not abuse its discretion. See Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-30631 Document: 00513833273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Citywide Acupuncture Services, P.L.L.C., as Assignee of Priscilla De Jesus, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Clarendon National Insurance Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for appellant.Christopher S. Cardillo, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered September 15, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff's untimely submission of the claim.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order as denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff's untimely submission of the claim at issue. </p><p>Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, the Civil Court properly found that, on this record, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had timely submitted the claim at issue (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: September 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT P. BENYAMINI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SAHOOTA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-16863

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02916-GEBEFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Robert P. Benyamini, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his medical needs and other constitutional violations. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-16863

dismissal of an action for failure to comply with an order to file an amended

complaint, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after

providing Benyamini with an opportunity to amend his complaint, apprising him of

the deficiencies of his pleading, and warning him that failure to amend would

result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing dismissal of action for

failure to comply with court orders); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (listing factors to

guide dismissal under Rule 41(b)).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Leonard Borow, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aeroflex Incorporated, hereby certify that the Form 10-Q of Aeroflex Incorporated for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aeroflex Incorporated.
 /s/ Leonard BorowName:  Leonard BorowPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  May 10, 2011
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aeroflex Incorporated and will be retained by Aeroflex Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



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

I, Jeffrey A. Rich, Chief Executive Officer of Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2004 ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2003
    
    /s/ Jeffrey A. RichJeffrey A. Rich,
Chief Executive Officer of Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/bamagai/Desktop/p130078.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:50:37 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0078 Focus Ready Draft 12/3/2012 ENGINEER: Hall \ DDH PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:
USE:

OTHER USES:

. MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: personal protective equipment for the body should be selected based on the task being performed and the risks involved and should be approved by a specialist before handling this product/ safety eyewear complying with an approved standard should be used when a risk assessment indicates this is necessary to avoid exposure to liquid splashes, mists or dusts/ emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should be checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of environmental protection legislation. In some cases, fume scrubbers, filters or engineering modifications to the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels Respirator: in case of inadequate ventilation wear respiratory protection. Respirator selection must be based on known or anticipated exposure levels, the hazards of the product and the safe working limits of the selected respirator. Health Effects: DANGER!| CAUSES EYE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY BE HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN OR IF SWALLOWED.| | do not breathe vapor or mist/ do not ingest/ do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing/ use only with adequate ventilation TLV/PEL: none established for the PMNfile:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/bamagai/Desktop/p130078.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:50:37 AM] SAT (concerns) (11/09/2012): Migration to groundwater: Rapid PBT rating: P1B1T2 Health: 2-3 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation, XB Testing (Testing desired) Eco: 1 No releases to Water, XB Testing (No Testing desired)
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1C
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/bamagai/Desktop/p130078.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:50:37 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0078file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/bamagai/Desktop/p130078.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:50:37 AM]file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/bamagai/Desktop/p130078.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:50:37 AM]
Exhibit 99(b)2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama
Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, William B. Hutchins, III,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, hereby certify
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

     (1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the
          quarter ended March 31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
          Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Alabama Power Company.


                                          /s/William B. Hutchins, III
                                           William B. Hutchins, III
                                           Executive Vice President,
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  May 13, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alabama Power Company and will be retained by Alabama Power Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 478

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor

Relations Board to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute which occurs

on Johnston Atoll, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1999

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the

National Labor Relations Board to assert jurisdiction

in a labor dispute which occurs on Johnston Atoll, an

unincorporated territory of the United States.

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

3 SECTION. 1. JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA4 TIONS BOARD.

5 Paragraph (1) of section 14(c) of the National Labor

6 Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking the period after ‘‘1959’’; and
2

HR 478 IH

1 (2) by inserting the following: ‘‘: Provided fur2 ther, That the Board shall not decline to assert ju3 risdiction over a labor dispute which occurs on John4 ston Atoll, an unicorporated territory of the United

5 States.’’.

Æ
#### James & Cordell *v.*Saunders.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The provisions of the Civil Code, § 4927, in regard to-applications for injunction to prevent the cutting of timber, without alleging insolvency, where the petitioner has perfect title to the land and shall attach an abstract of title to his petition, have reference only to applications for injunction.

*337Submitted July 18, 1906,

Decided January 16, 1907.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Mitchell. Echols superior court. September 12, 1905.

*S. Burkhalter*and *Wilcox &*Patterson, for plaintiffs.,

*Simon W.*Hitch, for defendant.

2. It is not necessary in an action for damages for trespass committed *by*cutting timber to attach such an abstract, if a sufficient allegation of title is made.

3. Where a suit was brought seeking to enjoin the cutting of timber and also to recover damages for the trespass already committed, and the petition contained a sufficient allegation of title, and prayers to support the action for damages, but did not comply with section 4927 of the Civil Code as to abstract of title; and where on the trial the plaintiffs abandoned any claim for injunction and stated that they would proceed only for damages, it was error to dismiss the petition on the ground that no sufficient abstract of title nas attached thereto.

4. Where the allegations and prayers of a petition. were sufficient for a suit for damages, but there was not attached a sufficient abstract of title to comply with the statute in regard to enjoining the cutting of timber, on special demurrer the defective parts might have been eliminated.

5. When counsel for the plaintiffs orally announced in open court that they abandoned any claim to proceed for an injunction, and would only proceed for damages, on proper motion the presiding judge would probably have required such election or abandonment to be put in writing as an amendment or part of the record, or would by order have stricken from 'the petition the proceeding for injunction. •

6. But where a statement is made in the bill of exceptions that the defendant moved to dismiss the entire petition on the ground that there was not a correct and complete .abstract of title attached thereto; and that in reply the plaintiffs expressly abandoned, in open court, their claim for an injunction, and stated that they would proceed only for the purpose of recovering damages to their property, “by reason of the acts set out in the petition, and refused to amend the same so as to meet.the defendant’s motion,” this does not show that the point referred to in the preceding note was raised and passed upon; but it will be construed to mean that the plaintiff refused to amend by attaching a complete abstract so as to meet the question raised by the motion.

7. Under the preceding rulings, it is unnecessary to pass upon the motion to send for an additional transcript of the record, so as to show that a plea had been filed and that the defendant was not in default.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  SUPP. B – Useful Links

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/SUPP. B – Useful Links SUPP. B – Useful LinksADR2022-02-19T08:40:42-05:00
			
			SUPP. B – Useful Links**Acquisition Systems**
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Federal Aviation Administration’s Acquisition Management System
US Postal Service Supplying Principles and Practices
US Mint Procurement Guidelines**Forums**
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition
Government Accountability Office –
Contract Appeals Board
Protests
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
US Court of Federal Claims
US Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals
Small Business Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals**Other Useful Government Websites**
Code of Federal Regulations
United States Code
Executive Order Disposition Tables
Interagency ADR Working Group
Department of Treasury Judgment Fund
Prompt Payment Act and CDA Interest Rates Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.1131 Security Zone: Wilson Cove, San Clemente Island, California. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a security zone: The water area adjacent to San Clemente Island, California within 1.5 nautical miles (1.73 statute miles, 2.8 kilometers) of the shoreline of San Clemente Island from Wilson Cove North End Light (LLNR 2565) to Spruce Pier, approximately 4.1 nautical miles (4.7 statute miles, 7.65 kilometers) southeast of Wilson Cove North End Light, described as follows: Starting at a point on the shoreline of San Clemente Island, California, in position 33°01′25.0′′ N, 118°33′43.0′′ W, for a place of beginning (point A), thence northeasterly to 33°02′11.0′′ N, 118°32′13.5′′ W (point B), thence southeasterly to 32 °58′40.5′′ N, 118°29′15.5′′ W (point C), thence southwesterly to 32°57′54.0′′ N, 118°31′17.2′′ W (point D), thence northwesterly along the shoreline of San Clemente Island to the place of beginning.
( b ) *Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry into the area of this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, San Diego, California. Section 165.33 also contains other general requirements.
[COTP San Diego Reg. 87-04, 52 FR 18230, May 14, 1987. Redesignated by USCG-2001-9286, 66 FR 33642, June 25, 2001]