alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Belknap,

No. 4577.

#### Yvonick Duhamel *& a v.*John O. Prescott *& a.*

Argued September 4, 1957.

Decided September 30, 1957.

*110*Bernard I. Snierson*and *John P. Chandler {Mr. Chandler*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Upton, Sanders & Upton {Mr. Richard F. Upton*orally), for the defendants John 0. and Samuel J. Prescott.

Wheeler, J.

The master found that when the plaintiffs discussed purchase of the property, they were fully aware of the existing restrictions and that they purchased relying upon the statement of Ellsworth Eddy that John 0. Prescott, by an instrument dated June 1, 1954, had released the restrictions. It was further found that after execution Eddy had inserted, without authorization of either party, a clause in this instrument which purported to remove the restrictions as to a “motel.” The parties agreed in the deed of conveyance of the property that the restrictions imposed “are intended to be and shall be taken as covenants to run with the land and which are intended to be and shall be taken as conditions thereof *. ... ”*There is nothing in the evidence which discloses that a common grantor had adopted a general scheme of development or uniform plan restricting all lots sold in the same manner *111and intending to create reciprocal benefits. *Nashua Hospital*v. *Gage,*85 N. H. 335; *Sun Valley &c. Co.*v. *Watts,*98 N. H. 428. There was evidence from which it could be found that the restrictions imposed on the plaintiffs were designed to protect and benefit the large tract of land of John O. Prescott on the easterly side of the highway. For these reasons we hold that the restrictions imposed were covenants running with the land which were binding on the plaintiffs.

The changes in the neighborhood were not such as to entitle the plaintiffs as a matter of law to the relief sought. No changes have occurred since the plaintiffs accepted their deed in August, 1954. See Restatement, Property, s. 564. The changes prior to that date on which the plaintiffs rely have not been “so radical and complete” as to defeat the purpose for which the restrictions were imposed on Camp Dewey. 4 A. L. R. (2d) 1111, 1113, 1114.

While there was evidence of violation of restrictions imposed by John O. Prescott in his deed of the Whispering Pines property it could be found that he has not waived the restrictions.

Furthermore failure of an owner to take action for violation of restrictions in other parts of the restricted district does not preclude him of right of enforcement for a violation “in proximity to his property which would be especially and directly injurious to him.” 4 A. L.R. (2d) 1111, 1114.

The record sustains the action of the court.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.36 Seasonal harvest limitations. ( a ) *Greater amberjack.* During March, April, and May, each year, the possession of greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ and in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a commercial permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, as required under § 622.20(a)(1), without regard to where such greater amberjack were harvested, is limited to the bag and possession limits, as specified in § 622.38(b)(1) and (c), respectively, and such greater amberjack are subject to the prohibition on sale or purchase of greater amberjack possessed under the bag limit, as specified in § 622.40(a). Also note that if commercial quantities of Gulf reef fish, *i.e.,* Gulf reef fish in excess of applicable bag/possession limits, are on board the vessel, no bag limit of Gulf reef fish may be possessed, as specified in § 622.38(a)(2).
( b ) [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 11957A065 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A065

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE TWO - PROVISIONS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE FIELD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, CHAPTER VI: SUPPLIES, SECTION III: ORES, SOURCE MATERIALS AND SPECIAL FISSILE MATERIALS COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY, ARTICLE 65 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 65

ARTICLE 60 SHALL APPLY TO APPLICATIONS FROM USERS AND TO CONTRACTS BETWEEN USERS AND THE AGENCY RELATING TO THE SUPPLY OF ORES , SOURCE MATERIALS OR SPECIAL FISSILE MATERIALS COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY .

THE AGENCY MAY , HOWEVER , DECIDE ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF SUPPLIES PROVIDED THAT CONDITIONS WHICH ARE AT LEAST AS FAVOURABLE AS THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER ARE THEREBY SECURED FOR THE USER .
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-27745 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 10:58:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
# EUR-Lex - 11992E052 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992E052

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - PART THREE: COMMUNITY POLICIES - TITLE III: FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL - CHAPTER 2: RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT - ARTICLE 52 /* CODIFIED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY */ **

*
Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0021 *

Article 52

Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be abolished by progressive stages in the course of the transitional period. Such progressive abolition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State.

Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected, subject to the provisions of the Chapter relating to capital.
Editorial Note on Part 648
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

§ 648.126 Scup minimum fish sizes. ( a ) *Moratorium (commercially) permitted vessels.* The minimum size for scup is 9 inches (22.9 cm) TL for all vessels issued a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(6). If such a vessel is also issued a charter and party boat permit and is carrying passengers for hire, or carrying more than three crew members if a charter boat, or more than five crew members if a party boat, then the minimum size specified in paragraph (b) of this section applies.
( b ) *Party/Charter permitted vessels and recreational fishery participants.* The minimum size for scup is 10 inches (25.4 cm) total length for all vessels that do not have a scup moratorium permit, or for party and charter vessels that are issued a scup moratorium permit but are fishing with passengers for hire, or carrying more than three crew members if a charter boat, or more than five crew members if a party boat. However, possession of smaller scup harvested from state waters is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.131 and abide by state regulations.
( c ) The minimum size applies to whole fish or any part of a fish found in possession, e.g., fillets. These minimum sizes may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.122.
[76 FR 60635, Sept. 29, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 37480, June 21, 2013; 79 FR 38264, July 7, 2014; 84 FR 65703, Nov. 29, 2019; 87 FR 35116, June 9, 2022]
A Synopsis of Our Post-Storm Efforts
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-3-1998             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                JAN-3-1998             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          64,970                 709,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,085,380               7,862,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (288,353)               (207,079)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,641,271               4,001,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,243,825              13,709,141
<PP&E>                                       9,924,152               7,653,518
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,824,005)               (629,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,913,492              28,458,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,628,017              12,222,917
<BONDS>                                      6,175,109               6,417,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          900,000                 900,000
<PREFERRED>                                        100                     100
<COMMON>                                       352,502                 241,148
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,871,956               7,084,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,913,492              28,458,023
<SALES>                                     43,441,259              23,632,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,441,259              23,632,872
<CGS>                                       36,256,982              17,793,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,256,982              17,793,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,058,142               4,795,227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,458,566                 716,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,332,431)                 577,611
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (881,020)                 261,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,451,411)                 315,684
<DISCONTINUED>                                 101,507                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,349,904)                 315,684
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.60)                    0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.60)                    0.11
        

</TABLE>
§ 80.769 Shadow loss. Where the transmission path is obstructed the received signal must be adjusted to include shadow loss. Attenuation due to shadowing must be taken from § 80.769 Graph 1, as follows: ( a ) Inspect the map(s) to determine if a hill(s) obstructs an imaginary line of sight (dashed line on illustrative profiles of § 80.769 Graph 1 from the average terrain elevation at the coast station antenna to the water level at the ship location. If average terrain elevation exceeds the actual ground elevation at the antenna site, the latter elevation must be used as the average terrain elevation.
( b ) If a hill appears to obstruct the radio path, plot the antenna site elevation, the obstruction elevation and the height of the ship station on rectangular coordinate paper using elevation above mean sea level as the vertical scale and distance in statute miles as the horizontal scale. Then draw a straight line between the antenna and the ship.
( c ) If a hill obstructs the imaginary line of sight, determine its height (H) above the imaginary line and its distance (D) from either the coast or ship station, whichever is nearer, as illustrated by examples “A” and “B” on Graph 1.
( d ) Read the shadow loss from this Graph 1 and subtract that loss from the computed received signal.
( e ) Where more than one hill obstructs the transmission path, determine the height and position of a single equivalent hill, as illustrated by example “C” on this graph. Read the shadow loss from this graph for the equivalent hill.
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.60 Adjustment of management measures. In accordance with the framework procedures of the Gulf Shrimp FMP, the RA may establish or modify the following: ( a ) *Gulf penaeid shrimp.* For a species or species group: Reporting and monitoring requirements, permitting requirements, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas and reopenings, quotas (including a quota of zero), MSY (or proxy), OY, management parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions, gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition), gear markings and identification, vessel markings and identification, acceptable biological catch (ABC) and ABC control rules, rebuilding plans, restrictions relative to conditions of harvested shrimp (maintaining shrimp in whole condition, use as bait), target effort and fishing mortality reduction levels, bycatch reduction criteria, BRD certification and decertification criteria, BRD testing protocol and certified BRD specifications, and target effort reduction for juvenile red snapper mortality.
( b ) *Gulf royal red shrimp.* Reporting and monitoring requirements, permitting requirements, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas and reopenings, annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), quotas (including a quota of zero), accountability measures (AMs), MSY (or proxy), OY, management parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions, gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition), gear markings and identification, vessel markings and identification, ABC and ABC control rules, rebuilding plans, and restrictions relative to conditions of harvested shrimp (maintaining shrimp in whole condition, use as bait), and target effort reduction for juvenile red snapper mortality.
[78 FR 22952, Apr. 17, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 74712, Nov. 30, 2015; 85 FR 6819, Feb. 6, 2020]
* 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 December 16, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50401 Conference Calendar

DANIEL ISIDRO SOTELO-LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ROBERT M. TAPIA, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution - La Tuna, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CV-8-DB

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Daniel Isidro Sotelo-Lopez (Sotelo), federal inmate # 01763- 180, sought habeas corpus relief from his conviction and sentence for marijuana and cocaine offenses that violated 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Sotelo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its order construing Sotelo’s application for habeas relief as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order that Sotelo asked the district court to reconsider is not a final judgment. See Silver Star Enters., Inc., v. M/V SARAMACCA ,No. 04-50401 -2- 19 F.3d 1008, 1013 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the districtcourt’s denial of Sotelo’s motion for reconsideration is nonappealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Accordingly, Sotelo’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Editorial Note on Part 648
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

§ 648.100 Summer flounder Annual Catch Limit (ACL). ( a ) *Annual catch limits.* The Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC separate ACLs for the commercial and recreational summer flounder fisheries, the sum total of which shall be equal to the ABC recommended by the SSC. ( 1 ) *Sector allocations.* The commercial and recreational fishing sector ACLs will be established based on the allocations defined in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
( 2 ) *Periodicity.* The summer flounder commercial and recreational sector ACLs may be established on an annual basis for up to 3 years at a time, dependent on whether the SSC provides single or multiple year ABC recommendations.
( b ) *Performance review.* The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to the sector ACLs at least every 5 years. ( 1 ) If one or both of the sector-specific ACLs is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent (*i.e.,* more than once in 4 years or any 2 consecutive years), the Monitoring Committee will review fishery performance information and consider whether changes in measures are needed.
( 2 ) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan following a determination that the summer flounder stock has become overfished.
( 3 ) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded but may be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.
[76 FR 60626, Sept. 29, 2011, as amended at 87 FR 68929, Nov. 17, 2022; 88 FR 14507, Mar. 9, 2023]
§ 600.1415 Procedures for designating exempted states-general provisions. ( a ) States with an exempted state designation must: ( 1 ) Submit state angler and for-hire vessel license holder data to NMFS for inclusion in a national or regional registry database; or
( 2 ) Participate in regional surveys of recreational catch and effort and make the data from those surveys available to NMFS.
( b ) Process for getting an exempted state designation: ( 1 ) To apply for exempted state designation, a state must submit: ( i ) A complete description of the data it intends to submit to NMFS;
( ii ) An assessment of how the data conforms to the requirements of §§ 600.1416 or 600. 1417;
( iii ) A description of the database in which the data exists and will be transmitted; and
( iv ) The proposed process, schedule and frequency of submission of the data.
( 2 ) If NMFS determines the submitted material meets the requirements of §§ 600.1416 or 600.1417, NMFS will initiate negotiations with the state on a Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement must include the terms and conditions of the data-sharing program. The Memorandum of Agreement and state designation may be limited to data-sharing related to only anglers or only for-hire fishing vessels.
( 3 ) Following execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, NMFS will publish a notice of the exempted state designation in the Federal Register.
#### § 27.81 Alcoholic beverages.

Entering or remaining in any national wildlife refuge when under the influence of alcohol, to a degree that may endanger oneself or other persons or property or unreasonably annoy persons in the vicinity, is prohibited.
#### § 30.12 Disposition of feral animals.

Feral animals taken on wildlife refuge areas may be disposed of by sale on the open market, gift or loan to public or private institutions for specific purposes, and as otherwise provided in section 401 of the act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383, 16 U.S.C. 715s).

[38 FR 16356, June 22, 1973]
§ 501.5 Disclosure of requested information. ( a ) Upon request and satisfactory proof of identity, an individual appearing at the Commission offices shall be given immediate access to and permission to review any record, contained in a system of records, pertaining to him or her, shall be allowed to have a person of his/her choosing accompany him/her, and shall be given a copy of all or any portion of the record. The individual to which access is granted shall be required to sign a written statement authorizing the presence of the person who accompanies him or her, and authorizing discussion of his or her record in the presence of the accompanying person.
( b ) Requests made by mail to the Privacy Officer at the Commission offices will be acknowledged within 10 days from date of receipt (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays). This acknowledgement shall advise the individual whether access to the record will be granted and, if access is granted, copies of such records shall be enclosed.
( c ) If the Privacy Officer initially determines to deny access to all or any portion of a record, notice of denial shall be given to the individual in writing, within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) after acknowledgement is given, and shall include the following: ( 1 ) The precise record to which access is being denied;
( 2 ) The reason for denial, including a citation to the appropriate provisions of the Act and of these Rules;
( 3 ) A statement that the denial may be appealed to the Director;
( 4 ) A statement of what steps must be taken to perfect an appeal to the Director; and,
( 5 ) A statement that the individual has a right to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1) of any final denial issued by the Director.
( d ) Administrative appeal of an initial denial, in whole or in part, of any request for access to a record, shall be available. An individual may appeal by submitting to the Director a written request for reconsideration stating therein specific reasons for reversal which address directly the reasons for denial stated in the initial notice of denial. If access is denied on appeal, a final notice of denial shall be sent to the individual within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays), and shall state with particularity the grounds for rejecting all reasons for reversal submitted by the individual. The denial shall then be deemed final for purposes of obtaining judicial review.
[40 FR 49276, Oct. 21, 1975, as amended at 41 FR 5, Jan. 2, 1976]