alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 108.235 Construction. ( a ) Each helicopter deck must be designed to accommodate the loadings (static and dynamic) imposed by operation and stowage of helicopters intended to use the facility as well as environmental loadings (wind, wave, water, snow, etc.) anticipated for the unit.
( b ) The adequacy of each helicopter deck for the loadings required in paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by design calculations. Where the placement of a load affects the suitability of a structural member, the load must be evaluated in the most unfavorable position for each member.
( c ) The analysis required in paragraph (b) of this section must be based on the dead load of the structure, existing stresses in the deck when it is an integral part of a unit's structure, and each of the following loading conditions: ( 1 ) *Uniform distributed loading.* A loading of 2kg/m2 (42 lb/ft2) applied to the helicopter deck area.
( 2 ) *Helicopter landing impact loading.* The limit load established by the limit drop test in 14 CFR 29.725, or a load of not less than 75 percent of the helicopter maximum weight taken on a square area of 0.3 × 0.3 m (1 ft. × 1 ft.) under each main landing gear unit applied anywhere on the helicopter deck area.
( 3 ) *Stowed helicopter loading.* The helicopter maximum weight plus inertial forces from the helicopter due to anticipated unit motions, and applicable environmental loadings including wind loads.
( d ) The landing area of each helicopter facility must— ( 1 ) Have a non-skid surface;
( 2 ) Have drainage facilities that prevent the collection of liquids and prevent liquids from spreading to or falling on other parts of the unit;
( 3 ) Have recessed tie-down points; and
( 4 ) Be free of projections, except that landing lights or other projections may be installed around the periphery of the landing deck provided they do not interfere with landing and take-off operations.
( e ) The unprotected perimeter of each helicopter facility must have a safety net at least 1.5 meters (4.92 ft.) wide. The outer edge of the net must not extend more than 15 centimeters (6 in.) above the surface of the deck.
( f ) Each helicopter facility must have both a main and an emergency access/egress route located as far apart from each other as practicable.
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.45-9 Signals.

While fast to a dock, a vessel during transfer of bulk cargo shall display a red flag by day or a red light by night, which signal shall be so placed that it will be visible on all sides. When at anchor, a vessel during transfer of bulk cargo shall display a red flag by day, placed so that it will be visible on all sides. This flag may be metallic.
#### A. Frank Gorski, as Administrator of the Estate of Walter Bijosinski, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*International Railway Company, Appellant.

*Gorski*v. *International By. Go.,*131 A pi). Div. 934. affirmed.

(Argued January 14, 1910;

decided January 28, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 6, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned by defendant’s negligence.

*Dana L. Spring*for appellant.

*Charles Newton*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no ojnnion.

Concur: Cullen, CIl J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, IIaigiit, Vann, Werner and Hiscook, JJ.
# C_2008114EN.01000301.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/3

---

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 114/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 13.2.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 742/07 |
| Member State | Estonia |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Eesti rahvusliku filmikultuuri arengu toetamine |
| Legal basis | Eesti Filmi Sihtasutuse (edaspidi „EFSA”) toetuste eraldamise eeskirja eelnõu;
  Eesti Kultuurikapitali seadus;
  2008. aasta riigieelarve (jagu 6. Kultuuriministeeriumi valitsemisala) ja
  Eesti Kultuurkapitali ja Eesti Kultuuriministeeriumi toetuste jaotamise põhimõtted |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EEK 90 million
  Overall budget: EEK 540 million |
| Intensity | 50 % |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Eesti Filmi Sihtasutuse: Vana-Viru 3, EE-10111 Tallinn
  Eesti Kultuurkapital: Suur-Karja 23, EE-10148 Tallinn
  Eesti Kultuuriministeerium: Suur-Karja 23, EE-15076 Tallinn |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

13.2.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 742/07

Member State

Estonia

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Eesti rahvusliku filmikultuuri arengu toetamine

Legal basis

Eesti Filmi Sihtasutuse (edaspidi „EFSA”) toetuste eraldamise eeskirja eelnõu;

Eesti Kultuurikapitali seadus;

2008. aasta riigieelarve (jagu 6. Kultuuriministeeriumi valitsemisala) ja

Eesti Kultuurkapitali ja Eesti Kultuuriministeeriumi toetuste jaotamise põhimõtted

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EEK 90 million

Overall budget: EEK 540 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration

Until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Eesti Filmi Sihtasutuse: Vana-Viru 3, EE-10111 Tallinn

Eesti Kultuurkapital: Suur-Karja 23, EE-10148 Tallinn

Eesti Kultuuriministeerium: Suur-Karja 23, EE-15076 Tallinn

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/

---
#### § 112.35-7 Activating means.

The activating means must be in the navigating bridge or in a location where the means can be controlled by the chief engineer.

[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15267, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28287, June 4, 1996]
-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CAROLYN BEARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

 /

Case No. 14-cv-12436 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MONA K. MAJZOUB

JUDGMENT

The above entitled matter having come before the Court and in accordance 

with the Order entered on this date: 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Complaint [1] is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 16th, day of March, 2016. 

 DAVID J. WEAVER 

 CLERK OF THE COURT 

 BY: T. Bankston 

 DEPUTY CLERK 

2:14-cv-12436-GAD-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 03/16/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 351
#### BRONISLAW DOMZALSKI, PLAINTIFF, v. WILLIAM COHEN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May 11, 1928

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gtjmmere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Katzenbach.

For the rule, *Ralph N. Kellam.*

*Con*ira, *Albert 8. Woodruff.*

Per Curiam.

This case is before this court upon a defendants’ rule to show cause prosecuted by one of two defendants. On March 4th, 1927, the plaintiff was walking to his place of employment upon the sidewalk of Central avenue in the city of Camden, when two automobiles came in collision at the intersection of Central avenue and Seventh street. A car belonging to the defendants William, Haring Samuel and Rachel Cohen, trading as E. Cohen & Sons, was pushed on the sidewalk. This was the car which struck the plaintiff. The Cohen car (a Chevrolet) was being driven west on Central avenue. The ear of the defendant Reitz (a Chrysler) was being driven north on Seventh street. There was testimony that the Chrysler car was going thirty miles an hour and the Chevrolet twenty-five miles an hour at the time of the accident. Both cars were traveling in excess of the speed limit. Some of the witnesses placed the speed of the Chrysler at forty-five miles *128an hour. The driver admitted that he was going twenty-five miles an hour.

It is argued by the defendant E. Cohen *&*Sons who prosecute this rule, that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. We are not impressed with this contention. We consider the evidence of negligence ample on the part of both defendants to sustain the verdict.

The verdict was for $30,000. It is claimed that this is excessive. The injury was a severe one. It is permanent. The defendant is deprived of thirty-five per cent, of the use of his right leg. The calf of this leg was torn away. The wound became infected. A sloughing ulcer appeared. These conditions, of course, will be to some extent remedied but the efficiency of the leg to the percentage named.will be a permanent disability. The expenses and loss of wages to which the plaintiff was put was about $3,400. The plaintiff earned $35 a week. His age at the time of the accident was forty-five years. Taking into consideration all these elements we have reached the conclusion that the verdict is excessive and should be reduced to $20,000. If the plaintiff will within ten days from the filing of this opinion enter his written consent to the reduction of the verdict to $20,000, the rule will be discharged. If the said reduction is not consented to within said period, the rule will be made absolute.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0683

_____________________________

CLAUDE R. RATLIFF, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

January 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Loren D. Rhoton of Loren D. Rhoton, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donald E. Raby II, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pharmacy Buying
Association, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

<PAGE>

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:


/s/ Donald E. Raby II
---------------------
Donald E. Raby II
Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-39 Ocean.

A designation for all vessels normally navigating the waters of any ocean or the Gulf of Mexico more than 20 nautical miles offshore.
# C_2008121EN.01001501.xml

| 17.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/15

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by Italy of the public service obligation in respect of the following scheduled air services: Alghero-Bologna, Alghero-Turin, Cagliari-Bologna, Cagliari-Turin, Cagliari-Florence, Cagliari-Verona, Cagliari-Naples, Cagliari-Palermo, Olbia-Bologna and Olbia-Verona

(2008/C 121/12)

In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, the Italian Government has decided to modify the public service obligation in respect of the following scheduled air services: Alghero-Bologna, Alghero-Turin, Cagliari-Bologna, Cagliari-Turin, Cagliari-Florence, Cagliari-Verona, Cagliari-Naples, Cagliari-Palermo, Olbia-Bologna and Olbia-Verona, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 93 of 21 April 2006, and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 141 of 26 June 2007.

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with points 4.5 and 4.6 of the public service obligation, the fares are revised as follows:

| Route | Maximum concessionary fare (including VAT) | Maximum non-concessionary fare (including VAT) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Alghero-Bologna or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Alghero-Turin or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Cagliari-Bologna or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Caglieri-Turin or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Cagliari-Florence or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Cagliari-Verona or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Cagliari-Naples or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Cagliari-Palermo or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Olbia-Bologna or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |
| Olbia-Verona or vice versa | EUR 59 | EUR 104 |

Route

Maximum concessionary fare (including VAT)

Maximum non-concessionary fare (including VAT)

Alghero-Bologna or vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Alghero-Turin or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Cagliari-Bologna or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Caglieri-Turin or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Cagliari-Florence or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Cagliari-Verona or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Cagliari-Naples or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Cagliari-Palermo or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Olbia-Bologna or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

Olbia-Verona or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 59

EUR 104

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 93 of 21 April 2006 remain unchanged.

---
#### Ralph T. Smith, as Administrator of the Estate of William H. Lago, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Smith*v. *W. T.O.&R. B. B. B. Go.,*123 App. Div. 910, affirmed.

(Argued October 28,' 1909;

decided November 16,1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 6, 1907, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiffs intestate alleged to have been occasioned by defendant’s negligence.

*Henry PxoreeU for*appellant.

*JB. A. Field*for respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all *courts; no*opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Willard Bartlett, His-cook and Chase, JJ. Dissenting: Gray and Werner, JJ.
#### § 111.10-3 Two generating sources.

In addition to the emergency power sources required under part 112 of this chapter, each self-propelled vessel and each mobile offshore drilling unit must have at least two electric generating sources.

[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28276, June 4, 1996]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TRACEY SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-13795 

v. District Judge David M. Lawson 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

THE FOOD BANK OF EASTERN 

MICHIGAN, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND (DE 70) 

 On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amended 

Complaint.” (DE 62.) The Court struck that document from the docket because it 

was filed outside the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and did 

not “reproduce the entire pleading as amended” pursuant to Local Rule 15.1. (DE 

64.) 

 The Court held an unrelated telephonic status conference with the parties in 

this action on February 3, 2016. During the conference, the Court reiterated to 

Plaintiff that, although she is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, she is 

obligated to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the 

2:14-cv-13795-DML-APP Doc # 71 Filed 02/05/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1124
2

Eastern District of Michigan, and Judge Patti’s practice guidelines. This is the 

third time the Court has issued such a warning in this action, having also directed 

Plaintiff in this manner at the hearings on October 15, 2015 and December 23, 

2015. 

 On February 3, 2016, after the telephonic conference, Plaintiff filed a 

document titled “Motion to Amend Lawsuit Due to Slander.” (DE 70.) In the 

motion, Plaintiff again does not attach the entire pleading as amended, as she was 

specifically warned against in this Court’s January 27, 2016 order. (DE 64 at 2.) 

Although failure to comply with the Local Rule alone is not grounds for denial of 

the motion, the Court will once again STRIKE Plaintiff’s motion from the docket 

for failure to comply with the Local Rules and the Court’s instructions. Plaintiff is 

yet again instructed to refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, and Judge Patti’s practice guidelines 

before filing additional motions. Plaintiff is also reminded that no one in the 

courthouse can provide her with legal advice, including Judge Patti, his staff, 

Clerk’s Office staff, or another party’s attorney. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 5, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-13795-DML-APP Doc # 71 Filed 02/05/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1125
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on February 5, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:14-cv-13795-DML-APP Doc # 71 Filed 02/05/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1126
§ 75.416 Cost allocation plans and indirect cost proposals. ( a ) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, certain services, such as motor pools, computer centers, purchasing, accounting, etc., are provided to operating agencies on a centralized basis. Since Federal awards are performed within the individual operating agencies, there needs to be a process whereby these central service costs can be identified and assigned to benefitted activities on a reasonable and consistent basis. The central service cost allocation plan provides that process.
( b ) Individual operating agencies (governmental department or agency), normally charge Federal awards for indirect costs through an indirect cost rate. A separate indirect cost rate(s) proposal for each operating agency is usually necessary to claim indirect costs under Federal-awards. Indirect costs include: ( 1 ) The indirect costs originating in each department or agency of the governmental unit carrying out Federal awards; and
( 2 ) The costs of central governmental services distributed through the central service cost allocation plan and not otherwise treated as direct costs.
( c ) The requirements for development and submission of cost allocation plans (for central service costs and public assistance programs) and indirect cost rate proposals are contained in appendices IV, V and VI to this part.
#### § 131.980 Lookouts and watches.

Nothing in this part exonerates any master or officer of the watch from the consequences of any neglect to keep a proper lookout or to maintain a proper fire watch, or of any neglect of any precaution that may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, by general prudence, or by the special circumstances of the case. Each master shall set added watches when necessary to guard against fire or other danger and to give an alarm in case of accident or disaster.
#### § 122.282 Logbook for vessels of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers.

Except for a vessel required to have an Official Logbook by § 122.280, the owner, managing operator, or master of a vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers shall maintain logs or records in any form, which will be considered to take the place of the Official Logbook and may be used for the purpose of making entries therein as required by law or regulations in this subchapter. Such logs or records shall be kept available for review by a marine inspector for a period of one year after the date to which the records refer.