alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MICHAEL S. PRECKER ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. JACOB WINARSKY, APPELLANT.

Decided May 4, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

For the appellant, *Philip J. Schotland.*

For the respondents, *Andrew J. Whinery.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs, who are practicing attorneys-at-law of this state, brought suit against the defendant to recover compensation for legal services rendered to him, including a counsel fee which they claimed was paid by the express authority of the defendant, who agreed to reimburse them therefor. The case was tried before Judge Yan Riper, without a jury, and at the close of the hearing he directed a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the full amount of their claim. From this judgment the defendant has appealed, and has filed the following grounds for reversal: (1) The judgment of the court is against the weight of the evidence. (2) The judgment of the court is not supported by the evidence. (3) The amount of the judgment of the court is excessive and is not supported by the evidence.

On appeal from a judgment brought up for review, this court will take cognizance only of errors of law alleged to have been committel by the court below during the trial of the cause. *VanSciver*v. *Public Service Railway Co.,*96 *N.**466*J. L.*13. None of the grounds of appeal in the present case suggests the existence of any such errors. They all relate to matters which would be pertinent on a rule to show cause, but not one of them forms the basis for the review of a judgment on appeal.

Eor the reason indicated, the judgment of the Essex County Court of Common Pleas will be affirmed.
§ 111.85-1 Electric oil immersion heaters. Each oil immersion heater must have the following: ( a ) An operating thermostat.
( b ) Heating elements that have no electrical contact with the oil.
( c ) A high temperature limiting device that: ( 1 ) Opens all conductors to the heater;
( 2 ) Is manually reset; and
( 3 ) Actuates at a temperature below the flashpoint of the oil.
( d ) Either— ( 1 ) A low-fluid-level device that opens all conductors to the heater if the operating level drops below the manufacturer's recommended minimum safe level; or
( 2 ) A flow device that opens all conductors to the heater if there is inadequate flow.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15236, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28283, June 4, 1996]
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended                December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements                of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934                (15                U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                            |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |

| Dated:                February 8, 2007 | /s/                Joseph L. Sullivan    |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                        | Joseph                L. Sullivan        |
|                                        | President                                |
|                                        | (chief                executive officer) |
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                    CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Annual Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc. (formerly
ICT Technologies, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vasilios Koutsobinas, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report of the Compny fully complies with the requirements of
     section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.


                                            /s/  Vasilios Koutsobinas
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Vasilios Koutsobinas
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

January 25, 2010
#### § 509.4 Acknowledgment and numbering.

The Commission will acknowledge the receipt of a claim in writing and will notify the claimant of the claim number assigned to it, which number must be used on all further correspondence and papers filed with regard to the claim.
#### § 620.1 Scope and purpose.

The CyberCorps SFS Scholarship for Service (SFS) program provides funds to institutions of higher education that award scholarships to students who agree to work after graduation in the cybersecurity mission of a Federal executive agency, Congress (including any agency, entity, office, or commission established in the legislative branch), an interstate agency, a state, local or Tribal government or government-affiliated non-profit considered to be critical infrastructure, or as an educator in the field of cybersecurity at a qualified institution of higher education, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 7442(b)(3)(B). The employment will be for a period equal to the duration of the scholarship and to be started within 18 months and to be completed within five years of entering the Commitment Phase of the SFS program. Failure to satisfy the academic requirements of the program or to complete the service obligation results in forfeiture of the scholarship award, which must either be repaid or shall be treated as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan subject to repayment under the terms and conditions described in § 620.6 of this part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11335-GAO

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC and JACK E. ROBINSON

Petitioners,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

February 21, 2012

O’TOOLE, D.J.

The petitioner, Jack E. Robinson, was a candidate in the special December 2009 

Republican primary election for the United States Senate. Robinson also served as the treasurer 

of his federal campaign committee, Robinson Committee, LLC. After filing his 2009 Year End 

Report eighty-one days late, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) determined that 

Robinson violated 2 U.S.C. § 434(a) and imposed a penalty of $6,050. 

Robinson challenges this penalty on the grounds that he used his “best efforts” to file his 

report in a timely manner. See 11 C.F.R. § 111.35(b). To demonstrate best efforts, Robinson 

must show that he was “prevented from filing in a timely manner by reasonably unforeseen 

circumstances that were beyond his control” and that he filed “no later than 24 hours after the 

end of these circumstances.” 11 C.F.R. § 111.35(b)(3). Robinson argues that additional FEC 

information requests he received that pertained to his previous filings prevented him from filing 

on time. Specifically, he argues that the FEC information request required him to correct 

mistakes in his prior reports and this additional work impacted his filing of the 2009 Year End 

Report. 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 14 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 2
2

The need to accurately report campaign finances and the need to make corrections to 

one’s prior filings are not “unforeseen circumstances” within the meaning of the regulation. 11 

C.F.R. § 111.35(c). Petitioner has a familiarity with the regulations, the FEC, and a history of 

compliance. Under the deferential standard of review, this decision is neither arbitrary nor 

capricious. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Reviewing Officer Recommendation describes the 

criteria and grounds for the decision and cites the petitioner’s history of compliance, experience 

with the reporting process, and understanding of the regulations. The reasoning relied on by the 

FEC “makes sense” and should be upheld. See Western Sea Fishing Co., Inc. v. Locke, 722 F. 

Supp. 2d 126, 136 (D. Mass. 2010). Accordingly, the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 

11) should be GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed.

It is SO ORDERED.

/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 14 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

REAPPOINTMENT TO THE COMMITTEE

ON RULES OF EVIDENCE :

:

:

: NO. 775

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5 th day of September , 2018, William M. Davis, Esquire,

Philadelphia, is hereby reappointed as a member of the Committee on the Rules of

Evidence for a term of three years, commencing October 1, 2018.
§ 112.20-3 Normal source for emergency loads. ( a ) The normal source for emergency loads must be the ship's service generating plant.
( b ) The power from the ship's service generating plant for the emergency loads must be supplied to the emergency switchboard through automatic transfer switches.
"Keith Davis" To <mfavin@fec.gov> 

<i(davis@hdafec.com> 

12A)6/201103:37 PM 

Please respond to 

<kdavis@hdafec.com> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject John Kennedy audit 

i-listory: ^ jhis message has been replied to. 

Hi ly^arty - sorry not to get back to you before now. 

The Kennedy campaign does not request an oral hearing. With respect to the Draft Final Audit Report, 

we wish only to add a response that the Committee appreciates that the Audit Report acknowledges 

that the Committee complied fully with all ofthe recommendations contained in the Preliminary Audit 

Report. 

Thanks - Keith
#### § 120.378 Ungrounded systems.

Each ungrounded system must be provided with a suitably sensitive ground detection system, located at the respective switchboard, that provides continuous indication of circuit status to ground with a provision to momentarily remove the indicating device from the reference ground.

[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997]
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Baldwin,  President of CE Casecnan  Water and Energy  Company,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company  for the annual  period
          ended  December  31,  2002  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated:   March 28, 2003




                                          /s/ David A. Baldwin
                                          --------------------
                                          David A. Baldwin
                                          President
                                          (chief executive officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on november 2, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the national Cooperative                           ( print page 74560)                        Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Power Tool Institute Table Saw Guarding Joint Venture Project has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: The Black & Decker Corp., Towson, MD; Makita USA, Inc., La Mirada, CA; Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, mount Prospect, IL; and Techtronic Industries—North America, Anderson, SC. The general area of Power Tool Institute Table Saw Guarding Joint Venture Project's planned activity is the evaluation, investigation, research and/or development of mechanical blade guarding systems that are technically viable for table saws and provide improved and consistent safety performance.

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-9644 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Durkee & Associates 

1212 S. Victory Blvd. Burbank, CA 91502 | 818.260.0669 p 877.260.Q657 f 

August 1,2011 

Marty Kuest 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

Dear Mr. Kuest: 

The Party hereby does not request a hearing pertaining to the Draft Final Audit report for the 

Democratic Party of Orange County. 

Sincerely, 

Kinde Durkee 

Treasurer - Democratic Party of Orange County
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 107.211 Original Certificate of Inspection. ( a ) The owner or builder of a unit applies for an inspection for an original Certificate of Inspection by submitting before construction is started: ( 1 ) A completed Application for Inspection of U.S. Vessel, Form CG-3752, to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, of the marine inspection zone in which the unit is to be constructed; and
( 2 ) Plans and information indicating the proposed arrangement and construction of the unit to the Coast Guard in accordance with Subpart C of this part.
( b ) An original Certificate of Inspection is issued if the Coast Guard finds, during the inspections conducted while the unit is being constructed, that a unit contracted for on or after January 3, 1979 meets § 107.231.
( c ) An original Certificate of Inspection is issued if the Coast Guard finds that an uncertificated unit contracted for before January 3, 1979 meets the applicable requirements of this Subchapter as specified in the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, *“Inspection and Certification of Existing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units”* (Appendix A). Existing structure, arrangements, materials, equipment, and facilities will be considered satisfactory so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Repairs and minor alterations may be made to the same standards as originally used. Major alterations and conversions shall be in compliance with the provisions of each subpart of this part to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( d ) A Certificate of Inspection is valid for 5 years.
[CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56802, Dec. 4, 1978, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6503, Feb. 9, 2000]
§ 137.215 General conduct of survey. ( a ) When conducting a survey of a towing vessel as required by this subpart, the surveyor must determine that the item or system functions as designed, is free of defects or modifications that reduce its effectiveness, is suitable for the service intended, and functions safely in a manner consistent for vessel type, service and route.
( b ) The survey must address the items in § 137.220 as applicable, and must include: ( 1 ) A review of certificates and documentation held on the vessel;
( 2 ) A visual examination and tests of the vessel and its equipment and systems in order to confirm that their condition is properly maintained and that proper quantities are onboard;
( 3 ) A visual examination of the systems used in support of drills or training to determine that the equipment utilized during a drill operates as intended; and
( 4 ) A visual examination to confirm that unapproved modifications were not made to the vessel or its equipment.
( c ) Beyond the minimum standards required by this section, the thoroughness and stringency of the survey will depend upon the condition of the vessel and its equipment. If a surveyor finds a vessel to have multiple deficiencies indicative of systematic failures to maintain the installed equipment, he or she will conduct an expanded examination to ensure all deficiencies are identified and corrective action is promptly taken.
( d ) The owner or managing operator must notify the cognizant OCMI when the condition of the vessel, its equipment, systems, or operations, create an unsafe condition.
( e ) The cognizant OCMI may require that the owner or managing operator provide for the attendance of a surveyor or auditor from a TPO to assist with verifying compliance with this part.
§ 122.602 Hull markings. ( a ) Each vessel must be marked as required by part 67, subpart I, of this chapter.
( b ) Each vessel must— ( 1 ) Have permanent draft marks at each end of the vessel; or
( 2 ) Have permanent loading marks placed on each side of the vessel forward and aft to indicate the maximum allowable trim and amidships to indicate the maximum allowable draft.
( c ) A loading mark required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be a horizontal line of at least 205 millimeters (8 inches) in length and 25 millimeters (1 inch) in height, with its upper edge passing through the point of maximum draft. The loading mark must be painted in a contrasting color to the sideshell paint.
( d ) On a vessel that has a load line, the amidships marks required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be those required by the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966.
( e ) In cases where draft marks are obscured due to operational constraints or by protrusions, the vessel must be fitted with a reliable draft indicating system from which the bow and stern drafts can be determined.
( f ) On a vessel on which the number of passengers permitted on upper decks is limited by stability criteria, as indicated by the vessel's stability letter, the maximum number of passengers allowed on an upper deck must be indicated by a durable marking of at least 25 millimeters (1 inch) numbers and letters at the entranceway to that deck.
[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51353, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78082, Dec. 14, 2010]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7189

TONY WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versusSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-2617-9-08AJ) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Tyrone Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tony Wilson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Wilson v. South Carolina , No. CA-00-2617-9-08AJ (D.S.C. July 3, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

CHRISTOPHER VAN HOLLEN, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0766 (ABJ)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is ORDERED that 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 20] is granted and defendant’s cross motion for 

summary judgment [Dkt. # 25] is denied. It is further ORDERED that intervenor-defendant 

Hispanic Leadership Fund’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 30] is denied and intervenor-defendant 

Center for Individual Freedom’s cross motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 36] is denied.

This is a final, appealable order. 

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge

DATE: March 30, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 49 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 1
§ 113.45-5 General requirements. ( a ) Each refrigerated space that is accessible to the vessel's personnel and that can be locked from the outside so that it cannot be opened from the inside, must have an audible alarm system that can be operated from within the refrigerated space.
( b ) The alarm activator must be in the refrigerated space at its exit.
( c ) The audible signal must sound at a manned location.
( d ) If there is a common audible signal for more than one lockable refrigerated space, there must be an annunciator for locating the space from which the signal was initiated.
§ 73.735-103 Applicability. ( a ) The regulations in this part apply to all employees of the Department and to special Government employees to the extent indicated in Subparts J and K. They apply whether an employee is on leave, including leave without pay, or on duty.
( b ) These regulations may be supplemented by regulations governing principal operating components, or sub-units of principal operating components, provided the clearance and publication requirements for standards of conduct regulations are met and approval is obtained from the Department Ethics Counselor and the Assistant Secretary for Personnel Administration.