alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Keene District Court

No. 7195

#### State of New Hampshire v. Morton Whippie

October 31, 1975

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Robert V. Johnson II,*assistant attorney general *(Mr. Johnson*orally), for the State.

*Bell & Kennedy*and *Joyce A. Wilder (Mr. Ernest L. Bell III*orally) for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was prosecuted in the Keene District Court for the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor by the arresting officer, a State trooper. Defendant’s motion that the arresting officer be disqualified as prosecutor was denied by the Acting Justice, *Lichman,*J., who reserved and transferred the defendant’s exception.

The same issue was determined adversely to the defendant in *State v. Aberizk,*115 N.H. 535, 345 A.2d 407 (1975); *State v. LaPalme,*104 N.H. 97, 179 A.2d 284 (1962); *see State v. Urban,*98 N.H. 346, 100 A.2d 897 (1953).

*Exception overruled; remanded.*
§ 156.150 Declaration of inspection. ( a ) No person may transfer oil or hazardous material to or from a vessel unless each person in charge, designated under §§ 154.710 and 155.700 of this chapter, has filled out and signed the declaration of inspection form described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) No person in charge may sign the declaration of inspection unless he or she has determined by inspection, and indicated by initialling in the appropriate space on the declaration of inspection form, that the facility or vessel, as appropriate, meets § 156.120.
( c ) The declaration of inspection may be in any form but must contain at least: ( 1 ) The name or other identification of the transferring vessel or facility and the receiving vessel or facility;
( 2 ) The address of the facility or location of the transfer operation if not at a facility;
( 3 ) The date and time the transfer operation is started;
( 4 ) A list of the requirements in § 156.120 with spaces on the form following each requirement for the person in charge of the vessel or facility to indicate by initialling that the requirement is met for the transfer operation; and
( 5 ) A space for the date, time of signing, signature, and title of each person in charge during transfer operations on the transferring vessel or facility and a space for the date, time of signing, signature, and title of each person in charge during transfer operations on the receiving facility or vessel certifying that all tests and inspections have been completed and that they are both ready to begin transferring product; and
( 6 ) The date and time the transfer operation is completed.
( d ) The form for the declaration of inspection may incorporate the declaration-of-inspection requirements under 46 CFR 35.35-30.
( e ) The vessel and facility persons in charge shall each have a signed copy of the declaration of inspection available for inspection by the COTP during the transfer operation.
( f ) The operators of each vessel and facility engaged in the transfer operation shall retain a signed copy of the declaration of inspection on board the vessel or at the facility for at least 1 month from the date of signature.
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7177, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36256, Sept. 4, 1990; CGD 93-056, 61 FR 41461, Aug. 8, 1996]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 60899 Summary Calendar

MICHELE RENEE PEARSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

GUIDEONE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3 :18

- CV

- 782

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

Michele Pearson brought several claims against GuideOne America

Insurance Company, including fraud and breach of contract. The district court

granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and entered judgment in defendant’s

favor. Ms. Pearson timely appealed.

* 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 May 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60899 Document: 00515431246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2020No. 19

- 60899

2 After carefully reviewing the briefs, record, and applicabl e law, we affirm

for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its November 8, 2019,

order.

AFFIRMED. Case: 19-60899 Document: 00515431246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2020
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13628]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-292-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 19, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to be effective July 
1, 2000.

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 70

    ANR states that this filing, made in accordance with the provisions 
of Section 154.204 of the Commission's regulations, is to modify 
certain of ANR's pro forma service agreements so that discount 
agreements may provide for adjustments to rate components upward or 
downward to achieve an agreed upon overall rate as long as all rate 
components remain within the applicable minimum and maximum rates 
specified in the tariff.
    ANR states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13628 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 2.36 Navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, *navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters,* and *territorial waters* mean, except where Congress has designated them not to be navigable waters of the United States: ( 1 ) Territorial seas of the United States;
( 2 ) Internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence; and
( 3 ) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal influence that: ( i ) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage, or
( ii ) A governmental or non-governmental body, having expertise in waterway improvement, determines to be capable of improvement at a reasonable cost (a favorable balance between cost and need) to provide, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce.
( b ) *Navigable waters of the United States* and *navigable waters,* as used in sections 311 and 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1322, mean: ( 1 ) Navigable waters of the United States as defined in paragraph (a) of this section and all waters within the United States tributary thereto; and
( 2 ) Other waters over which the Federal Government may exercise Constitutional authority.
#### § 794.3 Matters discussed in this part.

This part primarily discusses the meaning and application of the section 7(b)(3) exemption. The meaning and application of other provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act are discussed only to make clear their relevance to the 7(b)(3) exemption and are not considered in detail in this part. Interpretations published elsewhere in this title deal with such subjects as the general coverage of the Act (part 776 of this chapter), methods of payment of wages (part 531, subpart C, of this chapter), computation and payment of overtime compensation (part 778 of this chapter), computation and payment of overtime compensation (part 778 of this chapter), retailing of goods or services (part 779 of this chapter), hours worked (part 785 of this chapter), and child labor provisions (part 570 of this chapter). Regulations on recordkeeping are contained in part 516 of this chapter, and regulations defining exempt bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees are contained in part 541 of this chapter. The equal pay provisions are discussed in part 800 of this chapter. Regulations and interpretations on other subjects concerned with the application of the Act are listed in the table of contents to this chapter. Copies of any of these documents may be obtained from any office of the Wage and Hour Division.
Department of Safety

No. 7727

#### Connell’s New & Used Cars, Inc. v. The State of New Hampshire

June 20, 1977

*Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green*and *Lee W. Mercer (Mr. Mercer*orally), for the plaintiff.

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Anne E. Cagwin,*of Concord, attorney *(Ms. Cagwin*orally), for the state.

Douglas, J.

This is an action challenging the suspension for one year of the plaintiff’s permit to inspect school buses. An unannounced school bus inspection conducted by the department *532of safety, division of motor vehicles on November 26, 1976, revealed various defects in two buses which had been inspected and passed by the plaintiff during the previous month. A hearing was held before the division of motor vehicles, at which it was determined that pursuant to RSA 260:14 V (Supp. 1975) the plaintiff’s inspection privileges as to all vehicles would be suspended for a period of one month, and its school bus inspection privileges would be revoked for one year. The plaintiff requested a rehearing, which the department denied. The plaintiff then brought an appeal before this court under the provisions of RSA ch. 541, which provide for direct appeal to the supreme court from the denials of petitions for rehearing by various commissions only when such action is “authorized by law.” RSA 541:2; *Tasker v. N.H. Personnel Comm’n,*115 N.H. 204, 338 A.2d 543 (1975); *Petition of Pondero,*94 N.H. 236, 51 A.2d 39 (1947). No such authorization is present in the instant case, however, and the provisions of RSA ch. 541 are therefore not available to the plaintiff. *Tasker supra; Hilton v. Special Board,*111 N.H. 381, 284 A.2d 917 (1971); *Winn v. Jordan,*101 N.H. 65, 133 A.2d 485 (1957).

Where a chapter 541 petition is incorrectly brought, however, our practice permits us to consider it as a petition for a writ of certiorari, entitling the plaintiff to the limited determination of whether the commission in question acted “illegally in respect to jurisdiction, authority or observance of law.” *Winn v. Jordan,*101 N.H. at 67, 133 A.2d at 487; *Cloutier v. State Milk Control Bd.,*92 N.H. 199, 203, 28 A.2d 554, 557 (1942). Certiorari may be invoked to review issues of fact only upon the restricted inquiry whether the finding or verdict could reasonably have been made. *Id.; Goldsmith v. Kingsford,*92 N.H. 442, 32 A.2d 810 (1943). In the instant case, there is evidence in the record to support the department’s findings that a kingpin found defective in one of the subject buses in July of 1976 was not corrected in the plaintiff’s October inspection, and that tire defects found by the department in November in two buses inspected by the plaintiff had existed at the time of the plaintiff’s inspection and had not been corrected. In view of these findings, together with the additional consideration that a warning had been issued to the plaintiff in October of 1976 for violations of the inspection regulations *533unrelated to the violations herein, we cannot say that the penalty imposed by the department was unlawful.

*Petition denied.*

All concurred.
§ 155.440 Segregation of fuel oil and ballast water on new oceangoing ships of 4,000 gross tons and above, other than oil tankers, and on new oceangoing oil tankers of 150 gross tons and above. ( a ) Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, in new oceangoing ships of 4,000 gross tons and above other than oil tankers, and in new oceangoing oil tankers of 150 gross tons and above, ballast water must not be carried in any fuel oil tank.
( b ) Where abnormal conditions or the need to carry large quantities of fuel oil render it necessary to carry ballast water that is not a clean ballast in any fuel oil tank, that ballast water must be discharged to reception facilities or into the sea in compliance with part 151 of this chapter using the equipment specified in § 155.370, and an entry shall be made in the Oil Record Book to this effect.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1625-0009) [CGD 75-124a, 48 FR 45715, Oct. 6, 1983, as amended by USCG-2006-25150, 71 FR 39210, July 12, 2006]
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.575 Susquehanna River.

The draw of the Conrail bridge, mile 1.0 at Havre de Grace, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
Argued and submitted February 14,

affirmed October 14, 1992

#### In the Matter of James W. Weyeneth, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*James W. WEYENETH, *Appellant.*

(9107-96559; CA A71096)

838 P2d 1113

Glen H. Downs, Portland, argued the cause and submitted the brief for appellant.

Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

*556Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

DURHAM, J.

*557DURHAM, J.

Defendant appeals from an involuntary commitment order. ORS 426.307(6). He acknowledges that he has a mental disorder. On *de novo*review, *State v. Pieretti,*110 Or App 379, 381, 823 P2d 426 (1991), *rev den*313 Or 354 (1992), we conclude that he is unable to provide for his basic personal needs and is not receiving care necessary for his health and safety and, for that reason, he is mentally ill. ORS 426.005(2)(b).

Defendant argues that, even assuming that he is mentally ill, the trial court erred by committing him. ORS 426.130 provides, in part:

> “ (1) After hearing all of the evidence, and reviewing the findings of the examining persons, the court shall determine whether the person is mentally ill. If, in the opinion of the court, the person is:

> U* * * * *

> “(b) Mentally ill based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court:

> “(A) Shall order the release of the individual and dismiss the case if:

> “(i) The mentally ill person is willing and able to participate in treatment on a voluntary basis; and

> “(ii) The court finds that the person will probably do so.

> “(B) May order conditional release under this subparagraph subject to the qualifications and requirements under ORS 426.125. If the court orders conditional release under this subparagraph, the court shall establish a period of commitment for the conditional release.

> “(C) May order commitment of the individual to the division for treatment if, in the opinion of the court, subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph is not in the best interest of the mentally ill person.”

Defendant contends that, before the court could commit him, it had to

> “articulate some rational nexus between the evidence and its conclusions that (1) defendant probably would not voluntarily participate in treatment, *and*(2) voluntary treatment would not be in defendant’s best interest.” (Emphasis supplied.)

*558The court did not have to make that connection. It found that defendant needs treatment and would not participate in voluntary treatment, and we agree. That is sufficient. The court did not also have to find that voluntary treatment was not in defendant’s best interests before it could commit him.

Affirmed.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement






        
TWENTY- FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twenty-Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of March 1, 2012, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Martin ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-three prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth herein below:


Agreement 




1.    Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which provides:


3.1    Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2012 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").


is hereby amended, effective as of March 1, 2012, to provide as follows:


3.1    Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2013 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").




		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.




Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.




EXECUTIVE                            EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Thomas Martin                    By: ___________________


______________________            Name: Jose Luis Laparte    


Its: CEO & President
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.440 Autopilot alarm or indicator. ( a ) A tankship owner or operator shall ensure that each installed autopilot unit without automatic manual override has an audible and visual alarm, which is distinct from other required bridge alarms, that will activate if the helm is manually moved while the autopilot is engaged.
( b ) A tank barge owner or operator shall ensure that each autopilot unit without automatic manual override installed on the primary towing vessel has a means to clearly indicate the autopilot status and warns personnel of the requirement to disengage the autopilot if positive rudder control is needed.
[CGD 91-045, 61 FR 39790, July 30, 1996]
(Placeholder Text) (Event TitleEvent Date and TimeEvent LocationEvent Description)

# image1.png
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14121]



[[Page 35918]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER00-936-001 and ER00-937-001]


Southern Energy Delta, L.L.C. and Southern Energy Potrero, 
L.L.C.; Notice of Convening Session

June 1, 2000.
    On May 22, 2000, the Commission issued an Order on Rehearing in 
Southern Energy Delta, L.L.C. and Southern Energy Potrero, L.L.C., 91 
FERC para. 61,117 (2000). In that order, the Commission granted 
rehearing, in part, and set the remainder of the dispute for an 
alternative dispute resolution proceeding. The Commission directed the 
Director of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service to convene the 
parties for the purpose of an alternative dispute resolution 
proceeding. Accordingly, a convening session will be held to address 
what processes can be taken to reach a consensual agreement, including 
whether to use an alternative dispute resolution process and/or an 
appropriate third party neutral.
    The convening session will be held on June 8, 2000, at the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission located at 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. The conference will begin at 10:00 a.m. in Hearing 
Room 7. Moreover, at the request of the parties, the remainder of June 
8 as well as June 9 will be available to allow the parties to proceed 
with settlement discussion if such action is appropriate.
    All interested parties are invited to attend the convening session. 
If a party has any questions with respect to the convening session, 
please contact Richard Miles, the Director of the Dispute Resolution 
Service or Amy Blauman. His telephone number is 1-877 FERC ADR (337-
2237) or 202-208-0702 and his e-mail address is 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98eaf1fbf0f9eafcb6f5f1f4fdebd8fefdeafbb6fefdfcb6edeb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aad8c3c9c2cbd8ce84c7c3c6cfd9eacccfd8c984cccfce84dfd9">[email protected]</span></a>. Amy's phone number is 202-208-2143 and her 
E-mail address is <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#77161a0e59151b16021a1619371112051459111213590204"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2445495d0a4648455149454a64424156470a4241400a5157">[email protected]</span></a>.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14121 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>