alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 111.105-40 Additional requirements for RO/RO vessels. ( a ) Each RO/RO vessel must meet ABS Marine Vessel Rules (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 110.10-1), section 4-8-4/27.3.2.
( b ) Each item of installed electrical equipment must meet the requirements for a Class I, Division 1; Class I, Division 2; Zone 0; Zone 1; or Zone 2 hazardous location when installed 460 mm (18 inches) or more above the deck of closed cargo spaces. Electrical equipment installed within 460 mm (18 inches) of the deck must be suitable for either a Class I, Division 1; Zone 0; or Zone 1 hazardous location.
( c ) Where the ventilation requirement of ABS Marine Vessel Rules section 4-8-4/27.3.2 is not met— ( 1 ) All installed electrical equipment must be suitable for a Class I, Division 1; Zone 0; or Zone 1 hazardous location; or
( 2 ) If fitted with an approved fixed gas detection system (set at 25 percent of the LEL), each item of installed electrical equipment must meet the requirements for either a Class I, Division 1; Class I, Division 2; Zone 0; Zone 1; or Zone 2 hazardous location.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28285, June 4, 1996; 61 FR 33045, June 26, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 23909, May 1, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65200, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16367, Mar. 16, 2023]
Exhibit 99.3

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 Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phyllis Yaffe, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:

|                 |  | By: | /s/PHYLLIS YAFFEName: Phyllis Yaffe
Title: Chief Executive Officer
|---------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 11, 2005.

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 14-20587

Plaintiff,

vs. District Judge Sean F. Cox

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

MARQUAN FRANKLIN,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

On December 8, 2015, Defendant Marquan Leroy Franklin filed a Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. #25], under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that

his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Before the Court is the government’s

Motion for Court Order to Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege [Doc. #36]. The motion is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

A criminal defendant who raises an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel

impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege. See In re Lott, 424 F.3d 446, 452-53 (6th

Cir. 2005). However, the waiver is “‘limited to the extent necessary to litigate a

petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims,’” and “litigants cannot hide behind

the privilege if they are relying upon privileged communications to make their case.” Id.

at 453-54, quoting Mason v. Mitchell, 293 F.Supp.2d 819, 823-24 (N.D. Ohio 2003). The

Court “must impose a waiver no broader than needed to ensure the fairness of the

-1-

2:14-cr-20587-SFC-RSW Doc # 43 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 191
proceedings before it.” In re Lott at 453.

The government asks to interview Defendant’s trial counsel ex parte on her

“communications with Franklin regarding the merits of his appeal and whether Franklin

expressly asked [counsel] to file a notice of appeal on his behalf.” That request is

DENIED.

However, the Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s § 2255

motion, and at that hearing, the government’s motion for an order to waive the privilege

is GRANTED to the extent necessary to litigate the Defendant’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel, as described in his motion, his affidavit, and his testimony at the

hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: September 6, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on September 6, 2016 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants September 6, 2016.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager for the 

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

2:14-cr-20587-SFC-RSW Doc # 43 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 192
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50210 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS PINON-ARZAGA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-66-CR-366-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 18, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Pinon-Arzaga appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that the district court erred by failing to apply a two-level reduction to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for his minor role in his offenses. Whether a defendant played a mitigating role in an offense as a minor participant is a sophisticated factual determination that enjoys the protection of the “clearly erroneous” standard. UnitedNo. 00-50210 -2- States v. Gallegos , 868 F. 2d 711, 713 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Examination of the facts contained in the record indicatethat the district court’s refusal to apply § 3B1.2(b) to PinonArzaga’s sentence was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
# C_2013252EN.01004903.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 4 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-119/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings and signed by means of a seal or other means of reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Action lodged out of time)

2013/C 252/89

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for, first, compensation for the damage purportedly sustained as a result of the fact that agents of the Commission entered his official lodgings in Luanda on 14, 16 and 19 March 2002 and, second, communication to him of the copies of the photographs taken on that occasion and the destruction of all documentation relating to that event.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 71.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BRUCE O. SCARBROUGH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-14044 

Judge Thomas L. Ludington 

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS 

 Plaintiff and Defendant, having stipulated and agreed, and the Court being 

fully advised: 

 It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are dismissed with 

prejudice, with each side to bear responsibility for its own costs and fees. This is a 

final Order and closes the case 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 17, 2015 

Case 1:14-cv-14044-TLL-PTM ECF No. 19 filed 03/17/15 PageID.76 Page 1 of 2
2 

So stipulated: 

BRIAN P. PARKER, PC 

/s/ Brian Parker (w/ consent) 

Brian P. Parker (P48617) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 

Southfield, MI 48075 

(248) 642-6268 

brianparker@collectionstopper.com 

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 

 /s/ Nasseem S. Ramin 

Thomas M. Schehr (P54391) 

Nasseem S. Ramin (P73513) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

400 Renaissance Center, 37th Floor 

Detroit, MI 48243 

(313) 568-6800 

tschehr@dykema.com 

nramin@dykema.com 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on March 17, 2015. 

 s/Suzanne M. Gammon 

 SUZANNE M. GAMMON 

Case 1:14-cv-14044-TLL-PTM ECF No. 19 filed 03/17/15 PageID.77 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.151-37 Servicing manual. ( a ) The servicing manual must provide instructions on performing the following tasks: ( 1 ) Removing the inflatable liferaft from the container for testing without damaging the liferaft or its contents.
( 2 ) Examining the liferaft and its container for damage and wear including deteriorated structural joints and seams.
( 3 ) Determining the need for repairs.
( 4 ) Performing each repair which can be made by a servicing facility.
( 5 ) Identifying repairs that the manufacturer must perform.
( 6 ) Determining when liferaft equipment must be replaced.
( 7 ) Conducting tests required by § 160.151-57.
( 8 ) Repacking the liferaft.
( 9 ) Changing the maximum height of stowage of the liferaft by changing the length of the painter.
( 10 ) Special equipment limitations or packing instructions, if any, necessary to qualify the liferaft for a particular height of stowage.
( 11 ) Changing the service of the liferaft by changing the contents of the equipment pack.
( 12 ) Proper marking of the liferaft container, including approval number, persons' capacity, maximum height of stowage, service (equipment pack), and expiration date of servicing.
( 13 ) A list of parts for— ( i ) Survival equipment;
( ii ) Compressed-gas cylinders;
( iii ) Inflation valves;
( iv ) Relief valves; and
( v ) Repair equipment.
( 14 ) The necessary pressures for each size of approved liferaft for conducting the “Necessary Additional Pressure” test required by § 160.151-57(k).
( b ) Each revision to a servicing manual, and each bulletin, that authorizes the modification of a liferaft, or that affects the compliance of a liferaft with any requirement under this subpart, must be submitted to and approved by the Commandant. Other revisions and bulletins need not be approved, but a copy of each must be submitted to the Commandant when issued.
( c ) Each manual provided under this section must bear the original signature of a representative of the manufacturer attesting that it is a true copy of the manual approved by the Commandant.
Exhibit 23.1

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-132795 and 333-143274 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-159656 and 333-138652 on Form S-3 of our report relating to the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting dated March 15, 2019 (December 18, 2019, as to the effects of the material weakness described in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (As Revised)), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Loral Space & Communications Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2018.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York

December 19, 2019
# C_2008110EN.01002801.xml

| 1.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/28

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India: modification of the address of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate

(2008/C 110/12)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007. p. 1) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).

SRF Limited, a company located in India, whose exports to the Community of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film are subject to an individual anti-dumping rate of 3,5 % by the aforementioned Regulation, has informed the Commission that on 7 November 2005 it has changed its address to:

| Block C, Sector 45 |
| --- |
| Greenwood City |
| Gurgaon 122003 |
| Haryana |
| India |

Block C, Sector 45

Greenwood City

Gurgaon 122003

Haryana

India

The company has argued that the change of address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous address of:

| Express Building 9-10 |
| --- |
| Bahadur Shah Zaraf Marg |
| New Delhi 110002 |
| India |

Express Building 9-10

Bahadur Shah Zaraf Marg

New Delhi 110002

India

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007. Therefore, the reference to:

| ‘Express Building 9-10 |
| --- |
| Bahadur Shah Zaraf Marg |
| New Delhi 110002 |
| India’ |

‘Express Building 9-10

Bahadur Shah Zaraf Marg

New Delhi 110002

India’

should be read as:

| ‘Block C, Sector 45 |
| --- |
| Greenwood City |
| Gurgaon 122003 |
| Haryana |
| India’ |

‘Block C, Sector 45

Greenwood City

Gurgaon 122003

Haryana

India’

in Article 2.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007.

The Taric additional code A753 attributed to SRF limited remains unchanged.

---
#### Julia Rahl, *Respondent, v.*Thomas Rahl, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Ready, J.
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO

 THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY RESTORATION PLAN 

(Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2013) 

The J. M. Smucker Company hereby adopts this Amendment No. 4 to The J. M. Smucker Company Restoration Plan (Amended and Restated
Effective January 1, 2013) (the “Plan”). Words and phrases used herein with initial capital letters which are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined. The provision of this Amendment No. 4 shall be effective as of the
date of execution set forth below. 
 Section 1 

Section 2.8(i) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

	 	“(i)	 [Reserved]” 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 4 to the Plan to be executed this 17th day of June, 2020. 
  

			
	THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jill R. Penrose

	Name:	 	Jill R. Penrose
	Title:	 	Chief People and Administrative Officer



  
 1
**EXHIBIT23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT’S CONSENT**

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements filed on Form S-8and Form S-3 of our report dated September 22, 2008, relating to thefinancial statements of Evolution Petroleum Corporation and subsidiariesappearing in the Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008.

 

 
| /s/ Hein &  Associates LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Hein &  Associates LLP     |   |

 

Houston, Texas

September 22, 2008

 

 

500 Dallas, Suite 2900

Houston, Texas 77002

Phone: 713-850-9814

Fax: 713-850-0725

www.heincpa.com

 

----
# C_2011152EN.01003303.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/33

---

Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Nicolas Katrakasas v Commission

(Case F-24/11)

2011/C 152/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Katrakasas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the selection board of 11 May 2010 upholding, following reconsideration, its decision of 9 March 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8- Administrators specialised in anti-fraud; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board of 11 May 2010 upholding, following reconsideration, its decision of 9 March 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8- Administrators specialised in anti-fraud;

| — | to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | annul the reserve list in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name, and all other decisions taken on the basis of that list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the reserve list in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name, and all other decisions taken on the basis of that list;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
EX 32-01


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
(Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),

I, Harry Masuda, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
Human BioSystems. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended
June 30, 2004, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

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


Dated: August 23, 2004


/s/ Harry Masuda
-----------------
Harry Masuda
Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          44,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  778,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (326,497)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,054
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               622,034
<PP&E>                                       1,068,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,817,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,027,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,325
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,136,439)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,817,513
<SALES>                                      9,015,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,015,903
<CGS>                                        8,439,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,270,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             9,890,284
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,741,953)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,808,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,499,802)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,499,802)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
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.

§ 154.315 Cargo pump and cargo compressor rooms. ( a ) Cargo pump rooms and cargo compressor rooms must be above the weather deck and must be within the cargo area.
( b ) Where pumps and compressors are driven by a prime mover in an adjacent gas safe space: ( 1 ) The bulkhead or deck must be gastight; and
( 2 ) The shafting passing through the bulkhead or deck must be sealed by a fixed oil reservoir gland seal, a pressure grease seal, or another type of positive pressure seal specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
# C_2013046EN.01002803.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/28

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Honnefelder v Commission

(Case F-42/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Open competition - Annulment of the decision of a selection board - Implementation of a judgment - Principle of legality - Plea of illegality against a decision to reopen the procedure for an open competition)

2013/C 46/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stephanie Honnefelder (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bode, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/26/05

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Honnefelder to bear two-thirds of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Honnefelder to bear two-thirds of her own costs.

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of Ms Honnefelder’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of Ms Honnefelder’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 25.6.2011, p. 34.

1

---