alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2010016EN.01008201.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 16/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 16/82

---

Guarantee Fund for external actions (codified version) *

P6_TA(2008)0533

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (codified version) (COM(2008)0365 — C6-0273/2008 — 2008/0117(CNS))

(2010/C 16 E/26)

(Consultation procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0365), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0365),

| — | having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0273/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0273/2008),

| — | having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0387/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0387/2008),

| A. | Whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

Whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
§ 112.20-5 Failure of power from the normal source or final emergency power source. ( a ) If there is a reduction of potential of the normal source by 15 to 40 percent, the loads under § 112.15-1 must be automatically supplied from the temporary emergency power source.
( b ) For systems in which a reduction of frequency of the normal source or final emergency power source adversely affects the emergency system and emergency loads, there must be means to transfer the loads under § 112.15-1 to the temporary emergency power source upon a reduction in the frequency of the normal source or final emergency power source.
Discussion – 12/22/10

Participants –

Bill Neuffer; US EPA/OQPS/RTP, NC – 919-541-5435; neuffer.bill@epa.gov

Jeremy Richard; PCS Geismar, LA – 225 – 621-1801; Jeremy.richard@pcsnitrogen 

.com

I called Jeremy to obtain information of the performance of the SCR installed at 

Unit 3 at PCS Geismar. Submitted emission test results for this unit showed NOx 

at 1.8 lb/T of 100 % acid.

Jeremy said Unit 3 was modified 3 years ago to produce a 65 % acid. Previously 

Unit 3 produced a 55% acid. This SCR is located after the gas expander and is thus 

an atmospheric SCR. Jeremy felt the gas/ammonia mixing was not as good due to 

this location. Unit 3 typically achieves 0.6 – 1.0 lb/T. Without too much trouble, 

the SCR could be at 0.6 lb/T on a consistent basis. Below 0.6 would be very 

difficult to achieve on a consistent basis.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Robin Magee,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-13587

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner Honorable Sean F. Cox

of Social Security,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING 

1/21/16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

In this action, Plaintiff Robin Magee appeals a final decision of the Commissioner

denying her application for Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act.

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford for determination of all

non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Report and Recommendation

pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). 

Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued on January 21, 2016, Magistrate Stafford recommends that: 1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED; and 2) the Commissioner’s Motion for

Summary be GRANTED, and that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after

being served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

1

2:14-cv-13587-SFC-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 382
make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the

magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id. 

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither

party has filed objections to the R&R. The Court hereby ADOPTS the January 21, 2016 R&R. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

DENIED; and 2) the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary is GRANTED, and that the

Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: February 8, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

February 8, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13587-SFC-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 383
April 14, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KNJ ENTERPRISES, INC

. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00271

- CV V.
WILBANKS & WILBANKS, P.C. , H. ERWI N WILBANKS , AND FIDELITY

NATIONAL TITLE INSUR ANCE COMPANY , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Wilbanks & Wilbanks, P.C. , H. Erwin Wilbanks , and Fidelity National Title Insurance Comp an y, signed March 7, 2014, was heard o n the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, KNJ Enterpris es, Inc., to pay all costs incurred i n this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
SaferProducts.gov is where the public can file and read complaints about thousands of types of consumer products.        

# Report unsafe products

# Search for unsafe products

# Business registration and product reports

#  Who we are and what we do

                For 50 years the CPSC has worked to protect people from unsafe consumer products through science, investigation, corrective action, and communication. CPSC’s work has contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products. Learn More...

# How we do it

We combine three important functions in one easy-to-use website to improve consumer product safety: 
      -  Reporting.  We collect reports of harm or potential harm about dangerous or potentially unsafe consumer products. Each report is reviewed by our staff of investigators and consumer product safety experts to determine what actions should be taken to protect the American public. Your report could provide information that may contribute to CPSC's decision to seek a product recall, seek penalties against any person or firm, or create new safety regulations or take other action authorized by law.   Learn More... 
      -  Search.    We publish unsafe product reports in a searchable, public database. You can search through these reports to find out whether any products in your home, or that you may be thinking about buying, could pose a risk to you or your family. You can also download all of the data we publish on the public database.                  Search Reports...  
      -  Business Engagement.   We give businesses the opportunity to respond to reports about potentially dangerous consumer products. Businesses that manufacture, import, and label consumer products receive notifications if any of their products are reported. Businesses can respond to these notifications and may have their comments published along with the reports in the database.                  Learn More...
- 2237
- 2238
#### Seaver v. Moore.

Appeal by defendant from, an order at special term denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest.

The action was brought by Alexander H. Seaver and another-against George Moore, for goods sold defendant by plaintiff. The order of arrest was granted on an affidavit charging fraud by defendant in the transaction.

*George O. Emerson,*for appellant.

*Charles J. Guiteau,*for respondent.

Davis, P. J.

The order was affirmed on the ground that the decision of the court below was proper on the affidavits. No point of importance was passed upon.

*Order affirmed.*
# Официален вестник L 73/2011

| | ISSN 1830-3617
  doi:10.3000/18303617.L_2011.073.bul |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | L 73 |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Законодателство | Година 5418 март 2011 г. |

ISSN 1830-3617

doi:10.3000/18303617.L_2011.073.bul

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

L 73

Издание на български език

Законодателство

Година 5418 март 2011 г.

---

| Съдържание | | II   Незаконодателни актове | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | МЕЖДУНАРОДНИ СПОРАЗУМЕНИЯ |
| | * | Информация относно датата на влизане в сила на Споразумението за партньорство в областта на рибарството между Европейския съюз и Соломоновите острови | 1 |

Съдържание

II   Незаконодателни актове

Страница

МЕЖДУНАРОДНИ СПОРАЗУМЕНИЯ

*

Информация относно датата на влизане в сила на Споразумението за партньорство в областта на рибарството между Европейския съюз и Соломоновите острови

1

| BG | Актовете, чиито заглавия се отпечатват с нормален шрифт, са актове по текущо управление на селскостопанската политика и имат кратък срок на действие.
  Заглавията на всички останали актове се отпечатват с удебелен шрифт и се предшестват от звезда. |
| --- | --- |

BG

Актовете, чиито заглавия се отпечатват с нормален шрифт, са актове по текущо управление на селскостопанската политика и имат кратък срок на действие.

Заглавията на всички останали актове се отпечатват с удебелен шрифт и се предшестват от звезда.

---

II Незаконодателни актове

МЕЖДУНАРОДНИ СПОРАЗУМЕНИЯ

| 18.3.2011 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | L 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2011

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

L 73/1

---

Информация относно датата на влизане в сила на Споразумението за партньорство в областта на рибарството между Европейския съюз и Соломоновите острови

На 7 декември 2010 г. Европейският съюз нотифицира Соломоновите острови, че Съветът, от името на Европейския съюз, е приключил необходимите процедури по влизането в сила на горепосоченото споразумение, подписано в Брюксел на 21 октомври 2010 г.

На 9 март 2011 г. Соломоновите острови от своя страна нотифицираха Европейския съюз за приключването на процедурите по сключването на споразумението от тяхна страна.

Вследствие на това споразумението влезе в сила на 9 март 2011 г. съгласно член 18 от него.

---
#### § 122.530 Responsibilities of licensed individuals.

Nothing in the emergency instructions or a station bill required by this subpart exempts any licensed individual from the exercise of good judgment in an emergency situation.
#### § 121.410 Electronic position fixing devices.

A vessel on an oceans route must be equipped with an electronic position fixing device, capable of providing accurate fixes for the area in which the vessel operates, to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI.
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2434

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Ronda Jo Due, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 2007 Filed: July 12, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, court-appointed counsel for Ronda Jo Due has filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw and a brief pursuan t to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Due pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. The district court 1 entered judgment on May 12, 2006. Due’s pro senotice of appeal, dated May 30 and postmarked June 1, was receive d by the district court on June 2. Even if the notice of appeal is deemed filed on May 30, it was not filed within ten days of entry of-2- judgment and is therefore untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). A district court may, however, grant a defendant an a dditional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, counsel’s motion is held in abeyance and the case is remanded to the district court to determine whether th e time for filing a notice of appeal should be extended under Fed. R. A pp. P. 4(b)(4). See United States v. Austin , 217 F.3d 595, 597 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Petty , 82 F.3d 809, 810 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Upon making that dete rmination, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,664,962
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,211,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,500
<INVENTORY>                                  1,033,382
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,316,013
<PP&E>                                       3,946,531
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,002,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,684,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,227,039
<BONDS>                                      3,784,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,088,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     665,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,684,792
<SALES>                                      3,776,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,776,562
<CGS>                                        4,197,777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,197,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               209,783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,090,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,398,634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,398,634)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)


</TABLE>
§ 115.670 Tailshaft examinations. ( a ) The marine inspector may require any part or all of the propeller shafting to be drawn for examination of the shafting and stern bearing of a vessel whenever the condition of the shafting and bearings are in question.
( b ) The marine inspector may conduct a visual examination and may require nondestructive testing of the propeller shafting whenever the condition of shafting is in question.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 892, Jan. 10, 1996. Redesignated by USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21080, Apr. 29, 2002]
§ 129.420 Branch circuits for lighting on OSVs of 100 or more gross tons. On each vessel of 100 or more gross tons, each branch circuit for lighting must comply with § 111.75-5 of this chapter, except that— ( a ) Appliance loads, electric-heater loads, and isolated small-motor loads may be connected to a lighting-distribution panelboard; and
( b ) Branch circuits, other than for lighting, connected to the lighting-distribution panelboard permitted by paragraph (a) of this section may have fuses or circuit breakers rated at more than 30 amperes.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE JUNE 30, 2000
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                          24,016,345
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      236,498
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                24,466,799
<PP&E>                           1,483,492
<DEPRECIATION>                     796,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  26,702,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            2,579,308
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            55,768
<OTHER-SE>                      26,702,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    26,702,824
<SALES>                          3,696,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,696,133
<CGS>                            1,337,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    1,337,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                34,269,429
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (675,425)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (30,993,559)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (30,993,559)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                   (30,993,559)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (11.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (11.42)


</TABLE>
§ 108.185 Ventilation for enclosed classified locations. ( a ) The ventilation system for each enclosed classified location must be designed to maintain a pressure differential between the enclosed classified location and each non-classified location adjacent to the enclosed classified location, so as to prevent the discharge of ignitable gases into the non-classified adjacent locations.
( b ) Each air intake must be outside of enclosed classified locations.
( c ) Each unit must have alarms that are powered independently of the ventilation motor power and control circuitry and sound at a continuously manned station when— ( 1 ) Gas is present in an enclosed classified location; or
( 2 ) The ventilation system for the space is not working.
( d ) Each ventilation system for enclosed classified locations must provide a complete change of air every five minutes.
[CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56808, Dec. 4, 1978, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28270, June 4, 1996]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John H. Deister, Respondent, *v.*Thomas J. Wintermute, Appellant.

*People ex rel. Deister*v. *Wintermute,*134 App. Div. 65, affirmed.

(Argued December 10, 1909;

decided January 4, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered September 20,1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plain*540tiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action of quo warranto.

*Richard H. Thurston*for appellant.

*Michael Danaher, John J. Crowley*and *Edward R. O'Malley, Attorney-General,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscook, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PUBLIC CITIZEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 14-148 (RJL)

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) CONSENT MOTION FOR

 ) LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF 

Defendant. ) 

______________________________ ) 

CONSENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Amicus Curiae the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) hereby moves for 

leave to file an amicus brief in support of Defendant the Federal Election Commission. Counsel for all parties have consented to the filing of an amicus brief by 

CCP. 

 Founded in 2005 by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley 

Smith, Amicus Curiae CCP is a 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to educate the 

public about the effects of money in politics and the benefits of increased freedom 

and competition in the electoral process. CCP works to defend the First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition through scholarly research and state 

and federal litigation. CCP has participated in many of the notable cases concerning campaign finance laws and restrictions on political speech, including Citizens 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 36 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 2
2 

United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 

(D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

 CCP believes that this amicus brief will assist the Court on the issue of the 

standard of review and appropriate deference. While the FEC’s brief does an excellent job of addressing those issues, CCP believes the Commission actually understates the deference it is due and the limited nature of judicial review as provided in the statute where the Commission fails to achieve the necessary votes to take 

affirmative action, is thus barred from taking such action, and therefore dismisses a 

Complaint. CCP’s brief addresses statutory and other factors that support deference and limited review equal to or greater than that described by the Commission, 

and refute the more stringent review sought by Plaintiffs. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

_________________________ 

Erik S. Jaffe (D.C. 440112) 

ERIK S. JAFFE, P.C. 

5101 34th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20008 

(202) 237-8165 

 

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Center 

for Competitive Politics 

September 17, 2014 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 36 Filed 09/17/14 Page 2 of 2
§ 111.53-1 General. ( a ) Each fuse must— ( 1 ) Meet the general provisions of Article 240 of NFPA 70 or IEC 60092-202:2016 (both incorporated by reference; see “§ 110.10-1 of this subchapter) as appropriate.
( 2 ) Have an interrupting rating sufficient to interrupt the asymmetrical RMS short-circuit current at the point of application; and
( b ) Renewable link cartridge-type fuses must not be used.
( c ) Each fuse installation must provide for ready access to test the condition of the fuse.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28279, June 4, 1996, as amended by61 FR 33045, June 26, 1996; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65197, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60153, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16363, Mar. 16, 2023]
#### § 108.177 Electrical equipment in classified locations.

Electrical equipment and devices installed in spaces made non-hazardous by the methods indicated in § 108.175 must only be essential equipment.