alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1326.93 Issues at hearing. ( a ) Prior to a hearing, the Secretary or his or her designee may notify the State in writing of additional issues which will be considered at the hearing. That notice must be published in the Federal Register. If that notice is mailed to the State less than 20 days before the date of the hearing, the State or any other party, at its request, must be granted a postponement of the hearing to a date 20 days after the notice was mailed or such later date as may be agreed to by the Secretary or his or her designee.
( b ) If any issue is resolved in whole or in part, but new or modified issues are presented, the hearing must proceed on the new or modified issues.
( c ) ( 1 ) If at any time, whether prior to, during, or after the hearing, the Secretary, or his or her designee, finds that the State has come into compliance with Federal requirements on any issue in whole or in part, he or she must remove the issue from the proceedings in whole or in part as may be appropriate. If all issues are removed the Secretary, or his or her designee, must terminate the hearing.
( 2 ) Prior to the removal of an issue, in whole or in part, from a hearing involving issues relating to the conformity with Federal requirements under part B of the Act, of the State plan or the activities of the State Protection and Advocacy System, the Secretary, or his or her designee, must provide all parties other than the Department and the State (see § 1326.94(b)) with the statement of his or her intention to remove an issue from the hearing and the reasons for that decision. A copy of the proposed State plan provision or document explaining changes in the activities of the State's Protection and Advocacy System on which the State and the Secretary, or his or her designee, have settled must be sent to the parties. The parties must have an opportunity to submit in writing within 15 days their views as to, or any information bearing upon, the merits of the proposed provision and the merits of the reasons for removing the issue from the hearing.
( d ) In hearings involving questions of noncompliance of a State's operation of its program under part B of the Act, with the State plan or with Federal requirements, or compliance of the State Protection and Advocacy System with Federal requirements, the same procedure set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be followed with respect to any report or evidence resulting in a conclusion by the Secretary, or his or her designee, that a State has achieved compliance.
( e ) The issues considered at the hearing must be limited to those issues of which the State is notified as provided in § 1326.90 and paragraph (a) of this section, and new or modified issues described in paragraph (b) of this section, and may not include issues or parts of issues removed from the proceedings pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
[80 FR 44807, July 27, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 35647, June 3, 2016; 85 FR 72911, Nov. 16, 2020]
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 		EXHIBIT 32
           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                      PURSUANT TO
                18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
     SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Colette Cozean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SurgiLight, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of SurgiLight, Incorporated.

/s/ Colette Cozean
Colette Cozean
Chief Executive Officer
December 12, 2006


I, Stuart Michelson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SurgiLight, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of SurgiLight, Incorporated.

/s/ Stuart Michelson
Stuart Michelson
Chief Financial Officer
December 12, 2006
§ 108.621 Equipment markings: General. Unless otherwise provided, each marking required in this subpart must be— ( a ) Printed in English;
( b ) In red letters with a contrasting background;
( c ) Permanent;
( d ) Easy to be seen;
( e ) At least 1.3 centimeters (1 ⁄ 2 inch) in height.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

BLAIR O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 14-CV-14050-DT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on the report and recommendation filed on July

10, 2015. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued

his report recommending that this court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for her failure to comply with the Court’s show cause No objections have

been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1

Having reviewed the file and the Report, the court concludes that the findings

and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for

purposes of this Order.

 1 The failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the court from its duty to

independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

2:14-cv-14050-RHC-DRG Doc # 10 Filed 08/14/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 28
ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 14, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

and/or pro se parties on this date, August 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2

2:14-cv-14050-RHC-DRG Doc # 10 Filed 08/14/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 29
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.239 Use of cast iron. ( a ) Cast iron used in a cargo containment system must meet the requirements of § 56.60-10(b) of this chapter.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the term “lethal products” in § 56.60-10(b) means those cargoes that Table 1 references to § 153.525 or § 153.527.
[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21207, May 17, 1982]
§ 11.495 Chief mate (OSV). ( a ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as chief mate (OSV) of offshore supply vessels less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT is 12 months of total service as mate, chief mate, or master of ocean or near-coastal and/or Great Lakes on self-propelled vessels of more than 100 GRT. Service on inland waters may substitute for up to 50 percent of the required service.
( b ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for as chief mate (OSV) of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more is 12 months of total service as mate, chief mate, or master of ocean or near-coastal and/or Great Lakes on self-propelled vessels of more than 100 GRT. At least one-half of the required experience must be obtained on vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more.
( c ) If an applicant for as chief mate (OSV) of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more does not have the service on vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more as required by paragraph (b) of this section, a tonnage limitation will be placed on the officer endorsement based on the applicant's qualifying experience. The endorsement will be limited to the maximum tonnage on which at least 25 percent of the required experience was obtained, or 150 percent of the maximum tonnage on which at least 50 percent of the service was obtained, whichever is higher. However, the minimum tonnage limitation calculated according to this paragraph will be 2,000 GRT. Limitations are in multiples of 1,000 GRT using the next higher figure when an intermediate tonnage is calculated. In no case will the limitation exceed 10,000 GRT/GT for OSVs unless the applicant meets the full requirements for an unlimited tonnage endorsement.
( d ) A person holding an endorsement as chief mate (OSV) may qualify for an STCW endorsement, according to §§ 11.307 and 11.313 of this part.
( e ) The Coast Guard may exempt an applicant from meeting any requirement under STCW Regulation II/2 (incorporated by reference, § 11.102 of this part) that the Coast Guard determines to be inappropriate or unnecessary for service on an OSV, or that the applicant meets under the equivalency provisions of Article IX of STCW.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77909, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58277, Sept. 29, 2014]
# C_2011331EN.01001201.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Adminsitratīvo (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 1 September 2011 — Gunārs Pusts v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-454/11)

2011/C 331/19

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gunārs Pusts

Applicant:

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the European Union rules governing repayment of aid to be understood to mean that payment of the aid may be considered undue in cases where, although the beneficiary of the aid continued to fulfil the undertakings, he did not comply with the established payment application procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the European Union rules governing repayment of aid to be understood to mean that payment of the aid may be considered undue in cases where, although the beneficiary of the aid continued to fulfil the undertakings, he did not comply with the established payment application procedure?

| 2. | Is a rule under which the undertakings made by the aid beneficiary are suspended, without giving the beneficiary of the aid the opportunity to be heard and where that suspension is deduced solely from the fact that an application has not been submitted, compatible with European Union law governing repayment of aid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a rule under which the undertakings made by the aid beneficiary are suspended, without giving the beneficiary of the aid the opportunity to be heard and where that suspension is deduced solely from the fact that an application has not been submitted, compatible with European Union law governing repayment of aid?

| 3. | Is a rule under which, where it is no longer possible to carry out a control in situ (because a year has elapsed) and where it is therefore deduced that the undertakings made by the beneficiary have been suspended, that beneficiary must repay the entire amount of the aid funds already paid during the commitment period, even if those funds have been granted and paid for several years, compatible with European Union law governing repayment of aid? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a rule under which, where it is no longer possible to carry out a control in situ (because a year has elapsed) and where it is therefore deduced that the undertakings made by the beneficiary have been suspended, that beneficiary must repay the entire amount of the aid funds already paid during the commitment period, even if those funds have been granted and paid for several years, compatible with European Union law governing repayment of aid?

in situ

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 196 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 196

     To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the design, 
renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United 
   Nations in any location in the United States unless the President 
   transmits to Congress a certification that the United Nations has 
 adopted internationally recognized best practices in contracting and 
                              procurement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Stearns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the design, 
renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United 
   Nations in any location in the United States unless the President 
   transmits to Congress a certification that the United Nations has 
 adopted internationally recognized best practices in contracting and 
                              procurement.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE DESIGN, RENOVATION, 
              CONSTRUCTION, OR RENTAL OF ANY HEADQUARTERS FOR THE 
              UNITED NATIONS IN ANY LOCATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be used for the design, 
renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United 
Nations in any location in the United States.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective if the 
President transmits to Congress a certification that the United Nations 
has adopted internationally recognized best practices in contracting 
and procurement.
                                 <all>
```
- 2981
- 2982
- 2983
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00296-CV

IN RE REGINA NACHAEL HOWELL 

FOSTER

RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 322-518571-12

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relator’s “Petition for Emergency Writ of 

Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus” and “Emergency Motion for Stay” and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s “Petition for 

Emergency Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus” and “Emergency Motion 

for Stay” are denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 21, 2015

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
§ 86.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations. ( a ) *Application.* This part does not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization to the extent application of this part would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.
( b ) *Exemption.* An educational institution which wishes to claim the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, shall do so by submitting in writing to the Director a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of this part which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
#### Frank Messina, Appellant, *v.*The United States Mortgage and Trust Company, as Receiver of the Brooklyn Wharf and Warehouse Company, Respondent.

*Messina*v. *TT. 8. Mortgage*<6 *Trust Go.,*113 App. Div. 914, affirmed.

(Argued November 23, 1909;

decided December 7, 1909.)

Appeal .from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 8,1906, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff ■entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial in an action by an employee to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the master’s negligence.

*William Adams Robinson*for appellant.

*Charles I. Oliver*and *Frederick E. Fishel*for respondent.

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

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner and Chase, JJ.
#### Dickinson v. Vanderpoel.

*Nonjoinder of parties*— *must he pleaded.*

In an action by one member of a firm for injuries done to firm property neither the complaint nor the answer showed a nonjoinder of parties. *Held,*that the dismissal of the complaint for nonjoinder was error.

Where a defense of nonjoinder of parties plaintiff exists, and is not disclosed by the complaint, it must be set forth in the answer.

. Motioít by plaintiff for a new trial upon an exception ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term.

The action was brought in Kings county by John Dickinson against Ellen Vanderpoel and another to recover for damages done to goods belonging to plaintiff by the heat of a steam boiler erected and maintained by defendants. The complaint alleged that the goods were the property of plaintiff. This was not denied by the answer. The evidence in behalf of plaintiff at the trial showed that the goods were the property of the firm of Dickinson & Co., composed of plaintiff and one Frederick Dunscomb. The court thereupon, upon motion of defendant, dismissed the complaint. Such other facts as are material appear in the opinion.

*169*C. C. Wust*and *James L. Campbell,*for plaintiff.

*Tracy & Tallmadge, for*defendants,

cited *Secor v. Keller,*4 Duer, 416, 419; *Freeman*v. *Fulton Fire Ins. Co.,*14 Abb. 407; 1 Chitty Pl., 14, *22.*

Talcott, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, who was, in form at least, the sole lessee of certain premises, to recover damages against the lessors for placing a steam boiler under the premises leased to the plaintiff, whereby, as alleged, the plaintiff’s goods in the store above were injured and damaged by excessive heat. It appeared on the trial that the plaintiff had a partner in the business. The nonjoinder of such partner was not in any manner disclosed by either the complaint or answer. The rule seems to be well settled that when the defense of nonjoinder of parties plaintiff exists, and is not disclosed by the complaint, it must be brought forward in the answer. *Bank of Havana*v. *Magee,*20 N. Y. 602; opinion of Comstock, J.; *Zabriskie*v. *Smith,*13 N. Y. 322; Code, §§ 147, 148. The judge at the trial dismissed the complaint upon the ground of the nonjoinder of the partner. This was erroneous whether the plaintiff would have been able to maintain the action in his sole name or not, if all the facts had been pleaded.

This is a motion for'a new trial, the exception having been sent to the general term in the first instance.

A new trial is ordered, costs to abide the event.

*Hew trial ordered.*
Presidential Documents

15803 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 62 

Monday, April 2, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of March 30, 2007 

Notice of Intention To Enter Into a Free Trade Agreement 

With Panama 

Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 2002, I have 

notified the Congress of my intention to enter into a free trade agreement 

with the Republic of Panama. 

Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of that Act, this notice shall be published in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

March 30, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–1647 

Filed 3–30–07; 11:26 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STOP THIS INSANITY, INC. EMPLOYEE 

LEADERSHIP FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12-1140 (BAH)

Judge Beryl A. Howell

ORDER

Upon consideration of the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 4, the 

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, the memoranda submitted in support and opposition, 

the Complaint, ECF No. 1, the exhibits attached thereto, and the entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the 

plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 4, is DENIED in all respects; and it is 

further

ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the 

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED in all respects.

SO ORDERED.

This is a final and appealable Order.

Date: November 5, 2012

 /s/ Beryl A. Howell

BERYL A. HOWELL

United States District Judge

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 11 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 1
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38167 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38168 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38169 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38170 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38171 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38172 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38173 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 38174 1992
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1989 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1989

 To provide for subsidies for interest on loans for rural multifamily 
 housing guaranteed by the Rural Housing Service of the Department of 
                              Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2009

 Mrs. Capito introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for subsidies for interest on loans for rural multifamily 
 housing guaranteed by the Rural Housing Service of the Department of 
                              Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Section 538 Improvement Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. SUBSIDIES FOR INTEREST ON GUARANTEED LOANS FOR RURAL 
              MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.

    The item relating to ``Rural Housing Service--Rural Housing 
Insurance Fund Program Account'' in title III of division A of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8) is amended by 
striking ``That, for applications received under the 2009 notice of 
funding availability, section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed loans 
funded pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to a guarantee 
fee and the interest on such loans may not be subsidized'' and 
inserting the following: ``That the Secretary may reduce the funding 
for section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed loans by up to 
$29,090,000, and  use such amounts as equivalent funds to subsidize the 
interest on  538 multi-family housing guaranteed loans for which 
applications are received under the 2009 notice of funding 
availability''.
                                 <all>
```