alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 155.1026 Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual. ( a ) The response plan must identify a qualified individual and at least one alternate who meet the requirements of this section. The qualified individual or alternate qualified individual must be available on a 24-hour basis.
( b ) The qualified individual and alternate must— ( 1 ) Speak fluent English;
( 2 ) Except as set out in paragraph (c) of this section, be located in the United States;
( 3 ) Be familiar with the implementation of the vessel response plan; and
( 4 ) Be trained in the responsibilities of the qualified individual under the response plan.
( c ) For Canadian flag vessels while operating on the Great Lakes or the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, WA, the qualified individual may be located in Canada if he or she meets all other requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) The owner operator shall provide each qualified individual and alternate qualified individual identified in the plan with a document designating them as a qualified individual and specifying their full authority to— ( 1 ) Activate and engage in contracting with oil spill removal organization(s) and other response related resources identified in the plan;
( 2 ) Act as a liaison with the predesignated Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OCS); and
( 3 ) Obligate funds required to carry out response activities.
( e ) The owner or operator of a vessel may designate an organization to fulfill the role of the qualified individual and alternate qualified individual. The organization must then identify a qualified individual and at least one alternate qualified individual who meet the requirements of this section. The vessel owner or operator is required to list in the response plan the organization, the person identified as the qualified individual, and the person or persons identified as the alternate qualified individual(s).
( f ) The qualified individual is not responsible for— ( 1 ) The adequacy of response plans prepared by the owner or operator; or
( 2 ) Contracting or obligating funds for response resources beyond the full authority contained in their designation from the owner or operator of the vessel.
( g ) The liability of a qualified individual is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(4).
mcft-ex101_7.htm



Exhibit 10.1

Frederick A. Brightbill 

31177 North 117th Drive

Peoria AZ 85383

October 30, 2019

Dear Fred,

This letter agreement confirms your employment as Interim Chief Executive Officer (“Interim CEO”) of MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of October 30, 2019. As Interim CEO, your employment with the Company will be “at will” and, as such, may be terminated at any time, by either you or the Company, with or without advance notice or cause.

While you are Interim CEO, the Company will continue its search for a permanent Chief Executive Officer.

Beginning October 30, 2019, and so long as you are Interim CEO:


	
 
	
•
	
The Company will pay (a) a base salary of $50,000 per month, less applicable taxes and withholding, payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll cycle (b) a cash bonus of $10,000 per month served as Interim CEO, subject to adjustment by the Compensation Committee based on your performance as Interim CEO, payable at the end of your service as Interim CEO (provided you remain employed by the Company as Interim CEO through the final date established by the Board) and (c) a one-time grant of 15,000 shares of restricted stock (with terms substantially similar to annual director grants, including a one-year vesting period). 





	
 
	
•
	
In addition to your compensation as Interim CEO, you will also continue to receive compensation for your Board and Board Committee service in the amounts consistent with those payable pursuant to the Company’s Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy, subject to applicable taxes and withholding.





	
 
	
•
	
The Company will reimburse you for all eligible business expenses (including living and travel-related expenses) in accordance with its customary policies and practices.





	
 
	
•
	
Due to the temporary status of your employment, you will not be entitled to any separation or severance-related pay following your termination of employment as Interim CEO.




Please acknowledge acceptance of the foregoing by executing the letter below and returning it to my attention. Please retain a copy for your records.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ PETER G. LEEMPUTTE

Peter G. Leemputte

Chair, Compensation Committee
#### Babcock Brothers Lumber Company *v.*Georgia, Florida and Alabama Railway Company.

Atkinson, J.

A letter from a general manager of a railway company, addressed to a lumber company, contained the following: “In view of our intention of putting down 60-pound rail, we will have several miles of 45-pound rail to sell, which we can offer at $26 per ton.” Subsequently the general manager verbally offered to sell to the lumber company 5 miles of 45-pound steel rail at $26 per ton. After this verbal offer, the general manager addressed to the lumber company a letter containing the following: “My conversation with Mr. Babcock on his recent visit to Bainbridge. This company can sell you five miles of 45-pound steel rail at $26 per ton, to be delivered as soon as the new rails, which this company has ordered, arrive, which will possibly be within the next 60 days.” In reply to this, an authorized agent of the lumber company wrote to the railway company as follows: “We have your esteemed favor of April 8 in regard to the 45-pound steel relayers, and accept your offer. Please consider the deal closed. In billing these, make two miles cash, and three miles to be paid for by note due a year from now, that is, April 1, 1905. ICindly deliver our first two miles at your earliest convenience, and the next three miles at your very latest convenience. We mean by this that we need the two miles, ‘ and do not need the three miles until early next year.” *Held:*(1) The acceptance was not unconditional, but, construing the whole together, embraced new terms not referred to in the offer, which do not appear to have been accepted by *330the railway company; and no complete contract was ever made. There was no suggestion of credit in the offer. (2) A suit by the lumber company against the railway company for a 'breach, of the contract alleged to have arisen from the correspondence above referred to was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Submitted July 18, 1906.

Decided January 16, 1907.

Complaint. Before Judge Harrell. City court of Bainbridge. December 18, 1905.

Cited in the briefs: Civil Code, §§ 3550, 3637; *Ga. R.*81/704; 95/518; 116/108; 106/864; Clark on Contracts, 37; Pars. Con. (6th ed.) 475; 56 Am. R. 371; 3 L. R. A. 94.

*Russell & Hawes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Donalson & Donalson,*contra,

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
#### § 329.10 Existence of obstructions.

A stream may be navigable despite the existence of falls, rapids, sand bars, bridges, portages, shifting currents, or similar obstructions. Thus, a waterway in its original condition might have had substantial obstructions which were overcome by frontier boats and/or portages, and nevertheless be a “channel” of commerce, even though boats had to be removed from the water in some stretches, or logs be brought around an obstruction by means of artificial chutes. However, the question is ultimately a matter of degree, and it must be recognized that there is some point beyond which navigability could not be established.
##### 



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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Mobility Electronics, Inc. (the Company), each certifies that, to his or her
knowledge on the date of this certification:

1. The quarterly report of the Company for the period ending September
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.

November 12, 2003
    
    /s/ Charles R. MolloCharles R. MolloPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Joan W. BrubacherJoan W. BrubacherChief Financial Officer


-27-
Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by February 7, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket No. 96-45).

Forward Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs (CC Docket No. 97-160).

Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98).

Number of Petitions Filed: 11.

Subject: Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. (WT Docket No. 98-169, RM-8951).

Application of Bidding Credits in the Interactive Video and Data Services Auction.

Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service.

Number of Petitions Filed: 6. 

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1443 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
§ 20.1309 Admissibility of respondents' criminal records and records with the Coast Guard before entry of findings and conclusions. ( a ) The prior disciplinary record of the respondent is admissible when offered by him or her.
( b ) The prior disciplinary record of the respondent is admissible when offered by the Coast Guard representative to impeach the credibility of evidence offered by the respondent.
( c ) The use of a judgment of conviction is permissible on the terms prescribed by § 20.1307.
*The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District

Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by

designation.

___________

 No. 96-1888 

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

JOE ORONA *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant *

*

 Submitted: November 20, 1996 

 Filed: January 10, 1997

___________

Before MCMILLIAN and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe Orona entered a Rule 11(a)(2) plea to possession with intent to

deliver marijuana. On appeal, Orona contends the district court improperly

refused to suppress evidence and statements gathered during a search of

Orona's vehicle. Orona claims that the police expanded the scope of a

lawful traffic stop without justification, and that he was thereafter

unlawfully seized. He further argues that his consent to search his

vehicle was tainted by his unlawful arrest and that the search was

therefore unlawful.
After a careful review of the record and the parties' briefs,

we conclude the magistrate judge properly denied Orona's motion to

suppress, and that an opinion would lack precedential value and would serve

no useful purpose. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's report adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### PATRICK QUINN, Plaintiff, *v.*WALTER CARR and others, Defendants.

*Contracts of agent—when principal not hound by.*

The defendants, who were - commission: merchants in the city of New York, employed one Carr as their agent at .Norwich, New York, to solicit, obtain, and ship to them produce tó be sold on commission. The plaintiff delivered to Carr a quantity of butter to be shipped to defendants and sold on commission, upon the guarantee of'said Carr that it would bring thirty to thirty-three cents per pound, less commission. The defendant had. no knowledge of the guarantee, and had never given Carr any specific authority to bind them by such a guarantee. No evidence was given of any similar act of Carr. The butter having been sold for less than the price guaranteed, this action was brought to .-recover the.-differenee. 5¿Zd,-.-that Carr had no authority, either real or apparent, to make the contract, and that defendants were not. liable thereon.

*260Motion for a new trial upon exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the General Term, after a verdict for the plaintiff at the Circuit.

*E. H.*Prindle, for the plaintiff.

*E. B. Thomas,*for the defendants.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.

Present — ■ Learned, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ.

Motion for new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
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.

§ 165.512 Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD. ( a ) *Definitions.* For the purposes of this section: ( 1 ) *Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region* means the Commander, Coast Guard Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region to act on his or her behalf.
( 2 ) *USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants* means the USS CONSTELLATION, its support craft and the accompanying towing vessels.
( b ) *Location.* The following area is a moving safety zone: All waters, from surface to bottom, within 200 yards ahead of or 100 yards outboard or aft of the historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION, while operating in the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor and the Patapsco River.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) The general regulations governing safety zones, found in § 165.23, apply to the safety zone described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants, entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region.
( 3 ) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the moving safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the person or vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons or vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region, and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
( d ) *Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State and local agencies.
( e ) *Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on the Thursday before Memorial Day (observed), and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on the Thursday following Memorial Day (observed).
[CGD05-07-010, 72 FR 34624, June 25, 2007, as amended by USCG-2012-1075, 78 FR 14189, Mar. 5, 2013; USCG-2016-0060, 81 FR 38594, June 14, 2016]
#### DU BOIS PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SAFETY SERVICE CO., a Missouri Corporation.

No. 16084.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 1958.

Thomas E. Scofield, Kansas City, Mo., and Conrad Christel, Buffalo, N. Y., for appellants.

Donald E. Johnson and C. Earl Hovey, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed with prejudice, on stipulation of parties.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ISRAEL ZUNUN , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 18

[ May 19, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Daliah H. Weiss

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2012

- CF

- 009727

- AXXX

- MB

.
Israel Zunun, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , G ROSS and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## NUMBER 13
- 22
- 00 107
- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

BRYAN ALBERTO CALDERON , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justice s Longoria, Hinojosa , and Silva Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant ’ s fifth motion for extension of time to

file the brief. Appellant ’ s brief was originally due to be filed on June 22, 2022. Appellant
previously requested and received two extensions of time to file the brief , until August 22,

2022
, and then until October 6, 2022. When the Court granted appellant’s second motion

for extension of time until October 6, 2022, the Clerk of the Court advised appellant ’ s2 counsel that “ the Court will grant no further extensions absent exigent circumstances. ”
Nevertheless, appellant ’ s counsel failed to file the brief and has instead filed a third
request for an extension until October 14, 2022, a fourth request for an extension until
October 19, 2022, and a fifth request for an extension until October 25, 2022. The se
motions for extensions of time to file the brief fail to comply with the appellate rules and
do not reference any exigent circumstances which satisfactorily explain the delay

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 10.5 (b)

. The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by counsel ’ s failure to have
timely filed a brief in this matter. Therefore, t he Court, having fully examined and
considered appellant ’ s most recent motion s for extension of time to file the brief and the

extensions previously granted in this cause, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice,
appellant ’ s pending motion s for extension of time to file the brief should be granted with

this order.
Appellant ’ s pending motions for an extension of time to file the brief are hereby

GRANTED , and the Honorable Victoria Guerra , counsel for appellant, is hereby
ORDERED to file the appella nt ’ s brief with this Court on or before the close of the
business day on October 25, 2022

. The failure t o file the brief as ordered herein will
result in referral to the Court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM
Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the 21st day of October, 2022.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Jerome A. STEVENS, Appellant.

No. 12471.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 21, 1958.

Decided Oct. 31, 1958.

Stanley H. Broder, Newark, N. J., for appellant.

Clyde A. Szuch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant has appealed from the denial by the district court of his application by letter for a writ of error coram nobis which the court treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct the sentence imposed on him on May 14, 1954, of twenty-five years imprisonment upon two counts of an indictment charging bank robberies under aggravated circumstances. In support of his re*550quest the defendant objected to a certain alleged instruction by the trial judge to the jury at his trial and to the failure of the indictment to charge that the lives of specified individuals were placed in jeopardy and that this was done by the defendant personally. The district court found no merit in the defendant’s application and denied it. We have carefully considered the argument advanced by the defendant and his counsel but find ourselves in agreement with the district court that the grounds stated were properly presentable only on appeal from the judgment of conviction and are not of such fundamental jurisdictional character as to be available to support a writ of habeas corpus or a motion under section 2255.

The order of the district court will be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**ADVANCED
      COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**


**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 Advanced Communications Technologies,
      Inc.
      (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Donahue, Vice President
      and
      Chief Financial 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:





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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
      June 15, 2007








/s/
      John
      E. Donahue





John
      E.
      Donahue


Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Bruce Benn, Principal Financial Officer of Validian Corporation (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  April 15, 2010







/s/Bruce Benn

Bruce Benn

Chief Financial Officer