alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 148

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 148.435 Electrical circuits in cargo holds.

During transport of a material that Table 148.10 of this part associates with a reference to this section, each electrical circuit terminating in a cargo hold containing the material must be electrically disconnected from the power source at a point outside of the cargo hold. The point of disconnection must be marked to prevent the circuit from being reenergized while the material is on board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARC THIELMAN; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

LAVONNE GRIFFIN

- VALADE, in her official capacity as Oregon Secretary of State; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 23

- 35452

D.C. No. 3:22

- cv

- 01516

- SB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 6, 2023 * * Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated against the Oregon Secretary of State and twelve Oregon counties
, challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s computerized vote tabulation and vote

-

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 12 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

by

- mail systems. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack

of subject

- matter jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a

cognizable injury

- in

- fact

. W e review de novo dismissals for lack of subject

- matter
jurisdiction. Sec. & Exch. Comm ’ n v. World Cap. Mkt., Inc. , 864 F.3d 996, 1003

(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

This Court recently considered and rejected claims similar to those Plaintiffs

assert here. See Lake v. Fontes
, 83 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2023)

. Plaintiffs allege that

they are injured by “ a lack of confidence in the integrity of the election system.” 1

But that alleged injury represents nothing more than the “kind of speculation that

stretches the concept of imminence beyond its purpose .” Lake , 83 F.4th at 1204

(quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs do not allege that their votes were not counted,

nor do they identify with sufficient particularity how any given election in Oregon

was fraudulently manipulated through the vote

- by

- mail or computerized tabulation

systems. Indeed, Plaintiffs co ncede that they do not know whether Oregon elections

are fraudulently manipulated at all . Plaintiffs allege only that they suffer a “crisis of

confidence” in Oregon’s voting systems, which i s the same “speculative” grievance

that we found insufficient to confer standing in Lake

. Id. at 120 1 (quotation marks

omitted). Plaintiffs ’ “conjectural allegations of potential injuries are insufficient to

1 To the extent that Plaintiffs ’ complaint also asserted a vote

- d ilution theory of inj ury , they have expressly disclaimed that theory on appeal.3

plead a plausible real and immediate threat of election manipulation,” i d. at 1204

(quotation marks omitted)
, as the district court correctly concluded in dismissing

their claims

.

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 46
Editorial Note: The Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of waiver regarding the requirements set forth in part 46, relating to protection of human subjects, as they pertain to demonstration projects, approved under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, which test the use of cost—sharing, such as deductibles, copayment and coinsurance, in the Medicaid program. For further information see 47 FR 9208, Mar. 4, 1982.

§ 46.409 Wards. ( a ) Children who are wards of the state or any other agency, institution, or entity can be included in research approved under § 46.406 or § 46.407 only if such research is: ( 1 ) Related to their status as wards; or
( 2 ) Conducted in schools, camps, hospitals, institutions, or similar settings in which the majority of children involved as subjects are not wards.
( b ) If the research is approved under paragraph (a) of this section, the IRB shall require appointment of an advocate for each child who is a ward, in addition to any other individual acting on behalf of the child as guardian or in loco parentis. One individual may serve as advocate for more than one child. The advocate shall be an individual who has the background and experience to act in, and agrees to act in, the best interests of the child for the duration of the child's participation in the research and who is not associated in any way (except in the role as advocate or member of the IRB) with the research, the investigator(s), or the guardian organization.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05477**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 05477\05477_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 05477\05477_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 05477\05477_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 05477\05477_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05477\05477_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05477\05477_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05477\05477_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05477\05477_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05477\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\05477_ D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 05477\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\05477_ MAP-1.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05477\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\05477_ WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 05477\05477_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 116.1160 Watertight integrity. ( a ) A hatch exposed to the weather must be watertight, except that the following hatches may be weathertight: ( 1 ) A hatch on a watertight trunk that extends at least 305 millimeters (12 inches) above the weather deck;
( 2 ) A hatch in a cabin top; and
( 3 ) A hatch on a vessel that operates only on protected waters.
( b ) A hatch cover must: ( 1 ) Have securing devices; and
( 2 ) Be attached to the hatch frame or coaming by hinges, captive chains, or other devices of substantial strength to prevent its loss.
( c ) A hatch cover that provides access to accommodation spaces must be operable from either side.
( d ) A weathertight door must be provided for each opening located in a deck house or companionway. Permanent watertight coamings must be provided as follows: ( 1 ) On a vessel on an exposed or partially protected route, a watertight coaming with a height of at least 150 millimeters (6 inches) must be provided under each weathertight door in a cockpit or a well, or on the main deck of a flush deck vessel.
( 2 ) On a vessel on a protected route, a watertight coaming with a height of at least 75 millimeters (3 inches) must be provided under each weathertight door in a cockpit or a well.
( 3 ) The height of the watertight coaming for a hinged watertight door, need only be sufficient to accommodate the door.
# C_2008310EN.01001901.xml

| 5.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/19

---

Commission notice updating the list of parties under examination pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 on the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty on imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China

(2008/C 310/07)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 (1) of 20 January 1997 authorises the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty on imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China. This duty resulted from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (2) of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (3), and as last maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005 (4). Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 88/97 comprises a list of parties whose requests for authorisation for exemption from the extended duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 71/97 were under examination.

1

2

3

4

Interested parties are hereby informed of the receipt of further requests for exemption, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97, and of requests which are still under examination at this stage. The suspension from the extended duty, following these requests, took effect as shown in Annex I to this notice, which constitutes an addition to the list of parties under examination.

---

(1)  OJ L 17, 21.1.1997, p. 17.

1

(2)  OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55.

2

(3)  OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 183, 14.7.2005, p. 1.

4

---

ANNEX

Parties under examination

| Name | Address | Country | Suspension pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97 | Date of effect | Taric additional code |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Citic – Marmes Bicycle CZ, s. r. o. | Žichlínské předměstí, Albrechtická 391, CZ-563 01 Lanškroun | CZ | Article 5 | 23.5.2008 | A891 |
| Euro-Bike Produktionsgesellschaft mbH | Biaser Straße 29, D-39261 Zerbst | DE | Article 5 | 15.10.2007 | A873 |
| MADIROM PROD Srl. | București, Sector 6, Splaiul Independenței nr. 319, OB. 152, România | RO | Article 5 | 11.8.2008 | A896 |
| S.C. Rich Euro Bike SRL | București, Urziceni Route, nr. 54A, Afumati, Ilfov County, 077010, România | RO | Article 5 | 10.7.2008 | A895 |
| Rose Versand GmbH | Schersweide 4, D-46395 Bocholt | DE | Article 5 | 16.9.2008 | A897 |

Name

Address

Country

Suspension pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97

Date of effect

Taric additional code

Citic – Marmes Bicycle CZ, s. r. o.

Žichlínské předměstí, Albrechtická 391, CZ-563 01 Lanškroun

CZ

Article 5

23.5.2008

A891

Euro-Bike Produktionsgesellschaft mbH

Biaser Straße 29, D-39261 Zerbst

DE

Article 5

15.10.2007

A873

MADIROM PROD Srl.

București, Sector 6, Splaiul Independenței nr. 319, OB. 152, România

RO

Article 5

11.8.2008

A896

S.C. Rich Euro Bike SRL

București, Urziceni Route, nr. 54A, Afumati, Ilfov County, 077010, România

RO

Article 5

10.7.2008

A895

Rose Versand GmbH

Schersweide 4, D-46395 Bocholt

DE

Article 5

16.9.2008

A897

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20427-07 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

RODNEY ARON DANIELS, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On September 18, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a 

plea hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on 

September 18, 2014, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 62, is ADOPTED. 

 

1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM Doc # 75 Filed 10/08/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 386
 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 61, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: October 8, 2014 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on October 8, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM Doc # 75 Filed 10/08/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 387
§ 133.45 Tests and inspections of lifesaving equipment and arrangements. ( a ) *Initial inspection.* The initial inspection of lifesaving appliances and arrangements for certification includes a demonstration of— ( 1 ) The proper condition and operation of the survival craft and rescue boat launching appliances at loads ranging from light load to 10 percent overload;
( 2 ) The proper condition and operation of rescue boats, including engines and release mechanisms;
( 3 ) The proper condition of flotation equipment such as lifebuoys, lifejackets, immersion suits, work vests, lifefloats, buoyant apparatus, and associated equipment;
( 4 ) The proper condition of distress signaling equipment, including EPIRB and pyrotechnic signaling devices;
( 5 ) The proper condition of line-throwing appliances;
( 6 ) The proper condition and operation of embarkation appliances, including embarkation ladders and marine evacuation systems;
( 7 ) The ability of the crew to effectively carry out abandon-ship procedures; and
( 8 ) The ability to meet the egress and survival craft launching requirements of this part.
( b ) *Reinspections.* Tests and inspections of lifesaving equipment shall be carried out during each inspection for renewal of certification and periodic inspection, and shall demonstrate, as applicable,— ( 1 ) The proper condition and operation of the survival craft and rescue boat launching appliances at loads ranging from light load to full load;
( 2 ) The proper condition and operation of rescue boats including engines and release mechanisms;
( 3 ) The proper condition of flotation equipment such as lifebuoys, lifejackets, immersion suits, work vests, lifefloats, buoyant apparatus, and associated equipment;
( 4 ) That each inflatable liferaft and inflatable lifejacket has been serviced as required under this chapter;
( 5 ) That each hydrostatic release unit, other than a disposable hydrostatic release unit, has been serviced as required under this chapter; and
( 6 ) That the crew has the ability to effectively carry out abandon-ship procedures.
( c ) *Other inspections.* Lifesaving appliances and arrangements are subject to tests and inspections described in paragraph (b) of this section during OSV boardings to ensure that the appliances and arrangements comply with applicable requirements, are in satisfactory condition, and remain fit for service.
[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25304, May 20, 1996, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6507, Feb. 9, 2000]
§ 139.115 General. ( a ) The Coast Guard approves TPOs to carry out functions related to ensuring that towing vessels comply with provisions of this subchapter. Organizations may be approved to: ( 1 ) Conduct audits of a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS), and the vessels to which the TSMS applies, to verify compliance with the applicable provisions of this subchapter;
( 2 ) Issue TSMS certificates to the owner or managing operator who is in compliance with part 138 of this subchapter;
( 3 ) Conduct surveys of towing vessels to verify compliance with the applicable provisions of this subchapter; and
( 4 ) Issue survey reports detailing the results of surveys, carried out in compliance with part 137 of this subchapter.
( b ) An organization seeking approval under this part must provide objective evidence to the Coast Guard that its program: ( 1 ) Is independent of the owner or managing operator and vessels that it audits or surveys;
( 2 ) Operates within a quality management system acceptable to the Coast Guard;
( 3 ) Ensures its auditors and surveyors are qualified and maintain continued competence;
( 4 ) Demonstrates the ability to carry out the responsibilities of approval; and
( 5 ) Meets all other requirements of this part.
( c ) A list of TPOs will be maintained by the Coast Guard, and made available upon request.
§ 13.201 Original application for tankerman-PIC endorsement. Each applicant for an original tankerman-PIC endorsement must— ( a ) Be at least 18 years old;
( b ) Apply on a form provided by the Coast Guard;
( c ) Present evidence of— ( 1 ) Passing a physical and medical examination in accordance with § 13.125 of this part;
( 2 ) Service on tankships in accordance with § 13.203 of this subpart;
( 3 ) Completion of an approved firefighting course that provides training in the subjects listed in Table 3 to § 13.121(e) completed within 5 years of the date of application for the endorsement, unless he or she has previously submitted such a certificate for a license, tankerman endorsement, or officer endorsement on an MMC; and
( 4 ) Completion of an approved course for Tankship: Dangerous Liquids or Tankship: Liquefied Gases appropriate to the endorsement applied for within the previous 5 years. A course certificate used for original issuance or renewal of an endorsement cannot be used for a subsequent renewal of the same endorsement; and
( d ) Be capable of speaking and understanding, in English, all instructions needed to commence, conduct, and complete a transfer of cargo, and be capable of reading and understanding the English language found in the Declaration of Inspection, vessel response plans, and Material Safety Data Sheet.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77995, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3223, Jan. 21, 2022]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-227 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

Cooperation 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MALAYSIA 

Signed at Selangor February 27, 2008 

with 

Agreed Minute 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MALAYSIA 

Nuclear Material: Cooperation 

Agreement signed at Selangor February 27, 2008; 

 Entered into force February 27, 2008. 

 With agreed minute.
- 2269
- 2270
- 2271
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10524

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN D. HUDSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-121-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin D. Hudson appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his two 

terms of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the 

district court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses when it 

allowed the probation officer to testify about the out-of-court statements of his 

mother and sister. We review this newly raised argument for plain error only. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish plain error, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10524 Document: 00513921787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2017
No. 16-10524

2

Hudson must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his 

substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, this court has the 

discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

The out-of-court statements by Hudson’s mother and sister were 

irrelevant to the determination whether Hudson violated any of the conditions 

of his supervised release. Hudson pleaded true to each of the allegations in the 

revocation petition. The Government introduced the evidence in order to rebut 

Hudson’s proffered justifications for possessing and using controlled 

substances. The right to confrontation did not apply because the hearsay 

testimony related to the revocation sentence rather than the decision to revoke 

supervised release. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972); United 

States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Giang 

Ho, 598 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the district court did not 

commit clear or obvious error when it admitted the hearsay testimony. See 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10524 Document: 00513921787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2017
Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.1    Page 1 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.2    Page 2 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.3    Page 3 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.4    Page 4 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.5    Page 5 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.6    Page 6 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.7    Page 7 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.8    Page 8 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.9    Page 9 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-13374-SJM-RSW   ECF No. 1   filed 09/03/14    PageID.10    Page 10 of 10
From: To: Subj: DEPARTMENTOFTHENAVY NAVALSTRIKEANDAIRWARFARECENTER 4755PastureRoad, BLDG465

FALLON,NV89496-5000 3770 Ser**N3/~?0** T\'l. r..r Commander, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center15

# ~~;:.A~Ji;~~}~~lt!S Department of the Navy Representative, FAA Westexn

__ Service Area (ANM-903) U!L 

### ULC I0 P PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 91.215(e) Ref: (a} CO, NAS Fallon ltr 3770 Ser 307/0165 of 10 Feb 89 (b) FAR Part 11, Subpart B (c) NAVSTKAIRWARCEN ltr 3770 Ser N3 of Dec 06 (d) Federal AviationAdministration Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-8863, Exemption No. 6741D of February 23, 2007 1. Reference (a) was the original Naval Air Station, Fallon request for a grant of exemption to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR 91.24, now FAR 91.215(e), per reference (b), namely to allow Transponder-off operations within a predefined portion of the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC)
. Reference (c) is the most recent request by the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) to extend this exemption, which was subsequently granted reference (d)

. 2. The current extension to the original exemption expires on 31 March 2013. Request this grant of exemption to FAR 91.215(3) be extended to 31 March 2015. The tactical operational requirements establishedby reference (a) and reaffirmedby reference·(c) remain valid. NSAWC continues to maintain close coordination with Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and Salt Lake CityARTCC to achieve compliance with the requirements listed in the conditions and limitations clause as established under the grant of exemption.
3-

Copy to: FAA Headquarters (AAT-6) COMNAVAIRPAC (N32) CO, NAS Fallon ATCFO, NAS Fallon be Commander James Kuehl, DSN 890-3591.

direction