alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 11.102 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, 202-372-1492, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England: ( 1 ) The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, 2011 (the STCW Convention or the STCW), incorporation by reference approved for §§ 11.201, 11.426, 11.427, 11.428, 11.429, 11.493, 11.495, 11.497, 11.553, 11.555, 11.1001, 11.1003, 11.1009, and 11.1105.
( 2 ) The Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code, as amended, 2011 (the STCW Code), incorporation by reference approved for §§ 11.201, 11.301, 11.302, 11.303, 11.305, 11.307, 11.309, 11.311, 11.313, 11.315, 11.317, 11.319, 11.321, 11.325, 11.327, 11.329, 11.331, 11.333, 11.335, 11.604, 11.901, and 11.1105.
( 3 ) The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), incorporation by reference approved for § 11.601.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77909, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2016-0315, 81 FR 43955, July 6, 2016]
FIU:O 

U.S. DISTHiCT CO URT 

DISTRI CT OF WYO ~I NG 

zgJz OCT 2 5 Prl 3 3l! 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTI~It£lH~IDW:RI s. CLERK 

CASP ER 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

FREE SPEECH, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 12-CV-127-S 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 

[Doc. 46]. The Court having reviewed the Motion and the FEC's Opposition thereto, and 

considering itself otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby DENIES Plaintiffs motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) governs an injunction pending an appeal "from an 

interlocutory order ... that ... denies an injunction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). To obtain such an 

injunction, the Plaintiff must show: (i) a strong position on the merits of the appeal; (ii) irreparable 

injury if a injunction pending appeal is denied; (iii) that an injunction would not substantially harm 

the Defendant; and (iv) that an injunction is not adverse to the public interest. See SIPC v. Blinder, 

Robinson & Co., 962 F.2d 960,968 (1Oth Cir; 1992). As provided in this Court's oral ruling denying 

Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the Court 

Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 52 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 2
determined that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. For the 

same reasons set forth on the record, therefore, the Court likewise finds that Plaintiff fails to meet 

the requirements for an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). Plaintiffs 

Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal [Doc. 46] is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

A 

Dated this o2 5 day of October, 2012. 

~ah~ United States District Judge 

2 

Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 52 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statements Nos. 333-06199, 333-34019 and 333-99311 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-91679and 333-30194 on Form S-3, of our report dated May 30, 2007, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. as of March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 and 2005 and therelated consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for thetransition period ended March 31, 2007 and each of the three years in the period ended December 31,2006, included in the Transition Report on Form 10-K of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc./s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C.MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.Phoenix, Arizona
From: Peter Eichleay 

### Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:29PM To: 'christopherdonovanl@gmail.com' 

### Subject: Fueling Incident

On Thursday, 9/4 at approximately 10:30 am, aircraft N6094R which is registered to Boston Executive Helicopter, LLC (BEH), was fueled by Flightlevel Norwood, LLC (FLN) in an area to the North of BEH's hangar and adjacent to the gate 3taxi-lane, in violation ofthe 57-footTOFA and the 25-foot building setback restriction forfueling. FLN's investigation to date indicates thatthe aircraft had been prepositioned in this area forthe fueling by BEH personnel when FLN's relatively new-hire employee, Jason Tibbets, arrived in response to the request. When Jason expressed concern aboutthe aircraft's position specifically relative to the setbacks, BEH employee Rob Silva responded by assuring him thatthe aircraft was properly positioned for a compliant fueling, which was obviously notthe case. FLN promptly reported the incidentto all appropriate AirportAuthorities. Without diminishing FLN's responsibility for the errantfueling, we both know that Rob is keenly aware ofthe fueling regulations and therefore it can only be surmised that he deliberately induced Jason toviolate them. Jason has been disciplined for his actions, and he, togetherwith all FLN fueling personnel, has been re-counseled on the rules and regulations. Asimple request thatwould help us all out: would you please take whatever action you aeem appropriate to ensure that BEH employees do not attempt to induce FLN personnel to fuel BEH aircraft in restricted areas.

Thanks foryourtime and help in this matter, Peter
#### Williams v. Irving.

*Judgment—diseharging upon conflicting affidavits. Practice..,*

Defendant claimed that a judgment against him for $14,000 had heen compromised and settled, and plaintiff denied the same. The preponderance of evidence, considering the affidavits only, was with defendant. *Held,*that it was not provident to discharge so large a judgment upon merely weighing conflicting affidavits.

Appeal from an order setting aside supplementary proceedings and ordering a judgment to be discharged. The judgmen t was recovered on the 19th of July, 1862, by Joseph Williams against Jambs Irving, and was for $14,449.11, and with interest amounted, at the time of the order, to over $25,000.

*Thomas Stevenson,*for appellant.

*Garvin, Fellows & Brooke,*for respondent.

Davis, P. J.

The head-note contains a statement of all that is material in the opinion.

*Order modified.*
#### § 111.35-1 Electrical propulsion installations.

Each electric propulsion installation must meet Sections 4-8-5/5.5, 4-8-5/5.11, 4-8-5/5.13, 4-8-5/5.17.7(e), 4-8-5/5.17.8, and 4-8-5/5.17.9 of ABS Marine Vessel Rules (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter), except that each one for mobile offshore drilling units must meet the requirements in section 6-1-7/12 of ABS MOU Rules (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).

[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16362, Mar. 16, 2023]
CERTIFICATION


     To my knowledge, this Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
30, 2002,  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information  contained in this Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of Peoples Bankcorp, Inc.



                                  By: /s/ Robert E. Wilson
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Robert E. Wilson
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Duly Authorized and Principal Executive,
                                      Accounting and Financial Officer)

Date: November 14, 2002
# C_2008131EN.01000601.xml

| 29.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/6

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 131/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 2.4.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 582/07 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Brandenburg-Nordost |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Propapier PM 2 KG |
| Legal basis | — | Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 vom 15. Juli 2006 in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Februar 2007 (BGBl. 2007 I S. 282) |

Date of adoption of the decision

2.4.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 582/07

Member State

Germany

Region

Brandenburg-Nordost

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Propapier PM 2 KG

Legal basis

—

Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 vom 15. Juli 2006 in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Februar 2007 (BGBl. 2007 I S. 282)

| — | Gesetz über die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ vom 6.10.1969 (BGBl. I S. 1861), zuletzt geändert durch Art. 102 der Verordnung vom 25.11.2003 (BGBl. I S. 2304), in Verbindung mit dem 36. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ (GA) für den Zeitraum 2007 bis 2010 (BT-Drs. 16/5215 vom 27.4.2007) |
| --- | --- |

—

Gesetz über die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ vom 6.10.1969 (BGBl. I S. 1861), zuletzt geändert durch Art. 102 der Verordnung vom 25.11.2003 (BGBl. I S. 2304), in Verbindung mit dem 36. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ (GA) für den Zeitraum 2007 bis 2010 (BT-Drs. 16/5215 vom 27.4.2007)

| — | Richtlinie des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft zur Förderung der gewerblichen Wirtschaft im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ — GA — (GA-G) vom 7.12.2006 (ABl. für Brandenburg Nr. 51 vom 27.12.2006, S. 798) |
| --- | --- |

—

Richtlinie des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft zur Förderung der gewerblichen Wirtschaft im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ — GA — (GA-G) vom 7.12.2006 (ABl. für Brandenburg Nr. 51 vom 27.12.2006, S. 798)

| — | Landeshaushaltsordnung (LHO) vom 21.4.1999 (GVBl. I/99, S. 106) mit den dazugehörigen Verwaltungsvorschriften (VV-LHO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Landeshaushaltsordnung (LHO) vom 21.4.1999 (GVBl. I/99, S. 106) mit den dazugehörigen Verwaltungsvorschriften (VV-LHO)

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Regional development, Employment

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 72 million

Intensity

12 %

Duration

2008-2010

Economic sectors

Manufacturing industry

Name and address of the granting authority

Finanzamt Frankfurt (Oder); Investitionsbank des Landes Brandenburg

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
§ 73.735-304 Use of government property. ( a ) An employee shall not directly or indirectly use, or allow the use of, Government property of any kind, including property leased to the Government, for other than officially approved activities. An Employee has a positive duty to protect and conserve Government property, including equipment, supplies, and other property entrusted or issued to him or her. For example: ( 1 ) Only official documents and materials may be processed on Government reproduction facilities. Both supervisors and employees must assure that this rule is strictly followed. (Exception for employee welfare and recreation associations is stated in Chapter 25-10, General Administration Manual. Exception for labor organizations is stated in Personnel Instruction 711-1.)
( 2 ) Employees may drive or use Government automobiles or aircraft only on official business. Use of a Government owned, leased, or rented vehicle or aircraft for non-official purposes may result in suspension for at least 30 days or removal from the Federal service. 31 U.S.C. 638a.
Example: Normally, use of a Government automobile by travel between home and place of duty would not be considered official business and could not be authorized. An exception to this rule might be appropriate in a situation where an employee is required to leave early in the morning to attend a meeting in a distant city, or to return late in the day from such a meeting. Allowing the employee to drive a government car to his or her home the night before in order to leave from home, or to return to his or her home in the evening upon completion of the trip is permissible, provided the employee does not use the car for any personal reason.
#### § 111.40-7 Location.

Each panelboard must be accessible but not in a bunker or a cargo hold, except a cargo hold on a roll-on/roll-off vessel.

[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28279, June 4, 1996]
#### Carter *v.*The State.

Submitted October 15.

Decided November 8, 1906.

Accusation of vagrancy. Before Judge Hodges. City court of Macon. July 7, 1906.

*John B. Cooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Brunson, solicitor-general,*contra.

Cobb, P. J.

One wlio wanders and strolls about in idleness, with no lawful purpose or object whatever, an habitual loafer, idler, and vagabond, who is able to work, has no property, no reasonably continuous employment, and no regular income, is a vagrant within the meaning of the Penal Code, §453, par. 3; and this is true notwithstanding such person may have a fixed place of abode, where he usually lodges. Acts 1903, p. 46. Especially would such person be a vagrant when his loafing and loitering was about pool-rooms, bar-rooms, dives, lewd houses, and other places of like character.

2. The evidence, though conflicting at some points, was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and no sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Bacou USA, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-09251 and 333-72637) on Form S-8 of Bacou, USA, Inc. of our reports
dated February 5, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Bacou
USA, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, and the related
schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form
10-K of Bacou USA, Inc.


                                                      KPMG LLP 



Providence, Rhode Island
March 26, 1999
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA
- 2011
- 0 387 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 0
-NM
- 222
- AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
§ 630.640 Employee. ( a ) *Employee* means the employee of a recipient directly engaged in the performance of work under the award, including— ( 1 ) All direct charge employees;
( 2 ) All indirect charge employees, unless their impact or involvement in the performance of work under the award is insignificant to the performance of the award; and
( 3 ) Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the award and who are on the recipient's payroll.
( b ) This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the recipient (*e.g.,* volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****United States--east coast,Virginia, Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers [and] York River, Yorktown to WestPoint [electronic resource].**
 
p0|p1|
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:12243/975

Item Number: 0191-B-13(online)

CGP systemNumber:000861645
August 17, 2018
§ 86.32 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity and
( ii ) comparable in quality and cost to the student. A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person which provides all or part of such housing to students only of one sex.
(Secs. 901, 902, 907, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374, 375; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1686)
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1514 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to reauthorize the juvenile accountability 

block grants program through fiscal year 2014. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1514 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Juvenile Accountability 

3 Block Grants Program Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY 

5 BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2014. 

7 Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

8 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.) is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in section 1801A(a), by striking ‘‘section 

11 1810(b)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1810(c)’’; 

12 (2) in section 1810(a), by striking ‘‘2009’’ and 

13 inserting ‘‘2014’’; and 

14 (3) in section 1810(b), by inserting ‘‘and each 

15 of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014’’ after 

16 ‘‘2004’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Fitzgerald *v.*The State.

Submitted October 15,

Decided November 7, 1906.

Indictment for misdemeanor. Before Judge Martin. Wilcox superior court. May 4, 1906.

*E. H. Williams*and *J. L.*Banlcston, for plaintiff in error.

*E. D. Graham, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bumpkin, J.

1. Where a grand jury returned in open court a special presentment against a defendant on the 20th day of March, charging him with keeping open a tippling-house on the Sabbath day, he having been arrested and bound over some weeks before for the offense, and such presentment was entered on the minutes, and no effort was made by him to secure subpoenas and obtain the presence of two certain witnesses until March 27, when subpoenas were issued, and he caused other subpoenas for the same witnesses to be issued on March 28, too late to be served in time to procure the presence of the witnesses at the trial on March 30, the witnesses residing in other counties, and no reason being shown for the delay or why he had not caused them to be served and procured their presence in due time, there was no abuse of discretion in overruling a motion to continue the case on account of their absence.

*2.*This case differs from that of *Rumsey*v. *State,*ante, 419, in which it was shown that the attendance of the absjmt witnesses could not by the use of due diligence be procured before the trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### S. Byron Hershey, Appellant, *v.*Angelina Marrone, as Administratrix of the Estate of Alberto G. Rosati, Deceased, Respondent.

*Hei-sJteyv. Marrone,*134 App. Div. 910, affirmed.

(Argued January 24, 1910;

decided February 8, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered *603July 11, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

*Sardius D. Bentley*for appellant.

*Louis Lowenstein*and *Francis W. Russell*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.