alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 115.500 When required. ( a ) Vessels carrying more than 12 passengers on international voyages must undergo an inspection for certification each year as specified in § 115.404.
( b ) All other vessels must undergo an inspection for certification as specified in § 115.404 and an annual inspection as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. ( 1 ) *Annual inspection.* Your vessel must undergo an annual inspection within the 3 months before or after each anniversary date. ( i ) You must contact the cognizant OCMI to schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No written application is required.
( ii ) The scope of the annual inspection is the same as the inspection for certification, as specified in § 115.404 but in less detail unless the cognizant marine inspector finds deficiencies or determines that a major change has occurred since the last inspection. If deficiencies are found or a major change to the vessel has occurred, the marine inspector will conduct an inspection more detailed in scope to ensure that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your vessel passes the annual inspection, the marine inspector will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( iii ) If the annual inspection reveals deficiencies in your vessel's maintenance, you must make any or all repairs or improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
( iv ) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6505, Feb. 9, 2000]
# C_2011298EN.01001601.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/16

---

Action brought on 5 August 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-412/11)

2011/C 298/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, because the measures adopted by it to implement the first railway package are insufficient, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of and Annex II to amended Directive 91/440/EEC (1) and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, because the measures adopted by it to implement the first railway package are insufficient, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of and Annex II to amended Directive 91/440/EEC (1) and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, (2)

1

2

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains of the national provisions in case since they provide that, in the event of disruption to traffic, allocation of train paths is made by the Société nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois (CFL; Luxembourg National Railway Company) and not by an independent body. CFL thus participates in the exercise of essential functions, which does not ensure fair and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure for other operators.

In reply to the objections raised by the Luxembourg authorities, the Commission points out, firstly, that the statement of the Luxembourg authorities that there is no reallocation of train paths in the event of disruption to traffic is incorrect. When the timetable can no longer be followed, CFL lets late trains pass, which constitutes a reallocation of train paths. Secondly, the Commission contests the argument that Article 29 of Directive 2001/14/EC constitutes a lex specialis derogating from the general rule and enabling justification of the allocation of train paths by CFL in the event of disruptions.

lex specialis

---

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1).

1

(2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

2

---
###### 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.

#### § 151.03-17 Compatible.

Compatible means that a cargo will not react in an unsafe manner with other cargo or materials used in construction of the barge. The prime considerations are the chemical, physical, or thermal properties of the reaction including heat, pressure, toxicity, stability, and explosive nature of the reaction and its end products.
Exhibit 32.2

                                  Certification

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Concetta Pryor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 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 fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; 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/
-----------------------
Concetta Pryor
Chief Financial Officer
September 9, 2005



This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 140.645 Navigation safety training. ( a ) Prior to assuming duties related to the safe operation of a towing vessel, each crewmember must receive training to ensure that they are familiar with: ( 1 ) Watchstanding terms and definitions;
( 2 ) Duties of a lookout;
( 3 ) Communication with other watchstanders;
( 4 ) Change of watch procedures;
( 5 ) Procedures for reporting other vessels or objects; and
( 6 ) Watchstanding safety.
( b ) Crewmember training must be recorded in the TVR, official logbook, or in accordance with the TSMS applicable to the vessel.
( c ) Credentialed mariners holding Able Seaman or officer endorsements will be deemed to have met the training requirements in this section.
# C_2011340EN.01004203.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/42

---

Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-86/11)

2011/C 340/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions on the ground that, in confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee, it refused to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions on the ground that, in confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee, it refused to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | In so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 20 May 2011, notified on 1 June 2011, of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 20 May 2011, notified on 1 June 2011, of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay an allowance of EUR 10 000 as compensation for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay an allowance of EUR 10 000 as compensation for non-material damage;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to reimburse all the applicant’s expenses connected with the invalidity procedure from its commencement, including those connected with the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to reimburse all the applicant’s expenses connected with the invalidity procedure from its commencement, including those connected with the complaint;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

---
# C_2013038EN.01003101.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Grazyte v Commission

(Case F-76/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Starting point - Expiry point - Periods of service for an international organisation disregarded - Application by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation)

2013/C 38/58

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diana Grazyte (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Guarino, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, then V. Joris, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing the applicant’s claims for expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms. Grazyte to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms. Grazyte to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 29.

1

---
#### Morgan B. Garlock, as Receiver of the Holbrook Insole Company, Respondent, *v.*Fire Association of Philadelphia, Appellant.

*G-arlockv. Fire Association of Philadelphia,*131 App. Div. 935, affirmed.

(Argued December 14, 1909;

decided January 4, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 31, 1909, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a policy of fire insurance.

*Ralph S. Kent*for appellant.

*Eugene M. Bartlett*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh." J.,‘ Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Yann, "Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.050-37 Vibration test. ( a ) Equipment submitted for Coast Guard approval must first be tested under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section. The test must be performed at an independent laboratory that has the equipment to subject the item under test to the vibrating frequencies and amplitudes prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section. The test report submitted with the application for Coast Guard approval must be prepared by the laboratory and must contain the test results.
( b ) ( 1 ) Each oil content meter and bilge alarm and each control of a separator must be subjected to continuous sinusoidal vibration in each of the following directions for a 2 hour period in each direction: ( i ) Vertically up and down;
( ii ) Horizontally from side to side; and
( iii ) Horizontally from end to end.
( 2 ) The vibrating frequency must be 80 Hz, except that the vibrating frequency of equipment that has a resonant frequency between 2 Hz and 80 Hz must be the resonant frequency. If the vibrating frequency is between 2 Hz and 13.2 Hz, the displacement amplitude must be ±1 mm. If the vibrating frequency is between 13.2 Hz and 80 Hz, the acceleration amplitude must be ±[(.7)(gravity)].
( c ) After completion of the tests specified in paragraph (b) of this section, a search must again be made for resonance and any significant change in the vibration pattern must be noted in the test report.
[CGD 76-088a, 44 FR 53359, Sept. 13, 1979, as amended by USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3392, Jan. 16, 2009]
EX-10.4.3


  Exhibit 10.4.3

 
 

	 
	 InMed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
 Suite #340- 200 Granville St. 
 Vancouver, BC V6C 1S4
 Canada

 


  

 
  
  

 
  
 4 March
2019
  
  
 Dear Eric
Hsu,
  
 On behalf of InMed’s Board
of Directors, I am pleased to announce your promotion to Senior Vice President, Pre-Clinical R&D. Additionally, in recognition of your agreement to increase your work commitment to InMed to full time (100%), I am pleased to make the following
changes to your compensation:
  
 Base Salary - will increase to $290,000 effective March 1,
2019; and
  
 Options - subject to approval by the Board of
Directors, you will be issued an additional 255,000 options to purchase common shares in the Company as per the Company’s standard options policies, priced on or around the date of this letter.

 
 On behalf of the entire Management Team and Board of Directors, thank you for your contributions to
the Company’s success and we look forward to achieving more, together.
 /s/ Eric A. Adams 

Eric A. Adams President and CEO
 InMed Pharmaceuticals
Inc.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, 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 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.411 Cargo tank thermal loads. For the calculations required under § 154.406(a)(4), the following determined loads must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG): ( a ) Transient thermal loads for the cooling down periods of cargo tanks for design temperatures lower than −55 °C (−67 °F).
( b ) Stationary thermal loads for cargo tanks for design temperatures lower than −55 °C (−67 °F) that cause high thermal stress.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 21.1



                               SUBSIDIARIES OF
                           PENSKE MOTORSPORTS, INC.



Wholly-Owned
-------------
California Speedway Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a California
Speedway

Competition Tire South, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a CompTire and
CompTire-Daytona Beach 

Competition Tire West, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, d/b/a CompTire and 
CompTire-Brooklyn

Michigan International Speedway, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, d/b/a Michigan
Speedway Corporation

Motorsports International, Corp. a Pennsylvania Corporation, d/b/a Motorsports
Services

North Carolina Motor Speedway, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, d/b/a North
Carolina Speedway

Pennsylvania International Raceway, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, d/b/a
Nazareth Speedway and Pennsylvania Speedway Corporation

45% Owned 
----------
Homestead-Miami Speedway, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a
Miami-Dade Homestead Motorsports Complex and Homestead-Miami Speedway
2:14-mj-30575-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1
2:14-mj-30575-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 2
2:14-mj-30575-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 3
2:14-mj-30575-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 4
2:14-mj-30575-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 5
2:14-mj-30575-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DAN LA BOTZ, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 13-997 (RC)

:

v. : Re Document No.: 12

:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

GRANTING THE FEC’S MOTION TO DISMISS

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion separately issued today, the 

defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this 

case is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2014 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge

Case 1:13-cv-00997-RC Document 23 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, 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 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.1300 Liquid level gauging system: General. ( a ) If Table 4 lists a closed gauge for a cargo, the liquid level gauging system under § 154.1305 must be closed gauges that do not have any opening through which cargo liquid or vapor could escape, such as an ultrasonic device, float type device, electronic or magnetic probe, or bubble tube indicator.
( b ) If Table 4 lists a restricted gauge for a cargo, the liquid level gauging system under § 154.1305 must be closed gauges that meet paragraph (a) of this section or restricted gauges that do not vent the cargo tank's vapor space, such as a fixed tube, slip tube, or rotary tube.
§ 108.215 Insect screens. ( a ) Accommodation spaces must be protected against the admission of insects.
( b ) Insect screens must be installed when natural ventilation is provided.
[No. 3312.]

#### Colorado Springs and Cripple Creek Railway Co. v. Nugent.

An appeal transferred from tlie supreme court to this court, in a cause in which no appeal lay to the former court, will, where no appearance has been entered for the appellee, be dismissed. The transfer of the cause does not affect its status.

*Appeal from El Paso County Court.*Hon. Robert Herr, Judge.

Mr. E. E. Wi-iitted, Mr. R. H. Widdicombe, Mr. A; S. Brooks, for appellant.

Opinion *per curiam.*

This action was originally begun before a justice of the peace by appellee (plaintiff) against appellant (defendant) to recover for the killing of a cow by appellant. Plaintiff recovered judgment for $50.00, from which an appeal was taken to the county court, where he again recovered judgment for $40.00, from which this appeal is prosecuted. No appearance whatever has been made here by appellee. The judgment was rendered April 23rd, 1906; exclusive of costs was less than $100.00; and does not relate to a franchise or freehold.

Under sec. 388, Mills’ Annotated Code, the supreme court had no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The fact that the cause was transferred to this court under the provisions of the legislative act of 1911 does not change the status of the case. Therefore this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. *Brady v. People,*45 Colo., 364. *In re Catherine W. Skelton, deceased,*opinion C. A. (Colo.), May 13th, 1912.

n. , *Appeal Dismissed.*
# C_2013252EN.01004401.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/44

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BM v ECB

(Case F-106/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - ECB Staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Written reprimand)

2013/C 252/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BM (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by P. Embley, M. López Torres and E. Carlini, Agents, then by M. López Torres and E. Carlini, Agents and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision of the Deputy Director General of the ECB’s Human Resources, Budget and Organisation Directorate General to impose a reprimand on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that BM is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that BM is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 68.

1

---
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.

§ 151.40-1 Definitions. This section defines the various methods by which the cargo may be heated or cooled. ( a ) *Boiloff.* Cargo pressure and temperatures are maintained by permitting the cargo to boil naturally and the cargo vapor thus generated removed from the tank by venting.
( b ) *External cargo cooling* — ( 1 ) *Cargo vapor compression.* A refrigeration system in which the cargo vapors generated within the tank are withdrawn, compressed, and the lower energy vapor or its condensate returned to the tank.
( 2 ) *External heat exchange.* A refrigeration system in which the cargo vapor or liquid is cooled outside the cargo tanks by being passed through a heat exchanger. Refrigeration is not accomplished by direct compression of the cargo.
( c ) *Internal heat exchange.* A refrigeration system in which a cooling fluid is passed through heat transfer coils immersed in the cargo tank liquid or vapor phases.
( d ) *Tank refrigeration.* A refrigeration system in which the cooling fluid is passed around the cargo tank exterior in order to remove heat from the tank or its surroundings.
( e ) *No refrigeration.* A system that allows the liquefied gas to warm up and increase in pressure. The insulation and tank design pressure shall be adequate to provide for a suitable margin for the operating time and temperatures involved.
( f ) *Tank heating.* ( 1 ) A system in which the cargo is heated by means of steam or other heat transfer fluid running through coils within or around the tank. The cargo itself does not leave the tank.
( 2 ) A recirculating system in which the cargo leaves the tank, is pumped through a heater and then returned to the tank.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*John J. McCarthy *v.*The Board of Police.

The relator must be restored. Ordered accordingly. Opinion by

Brady, P. J.