alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

§ 154.151 Procedures for having the Coast Guard examine a vessel for a Certificate of Compliance. To have the Coast Guard examine the vessel for a Certificate of Compliance, as required in § 154.150, the owner of a foreign flag vessel must proceed as follows: ( a ) After submitting an application under § 154.22, await notification by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center that review of the vessel's plans or IMO Certificate and supporting documents is complete.
( b ) Except when paragraph (c) of this section applies, ( 1 ) After receiving notification from Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center that review is complete and the application is acceptable, dispatch the vessel to a United States port;
( 2 ) Notify the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, for the port where the vessel is to be inspected at least seven days before the vessel arrives and arrange the exact time and other details of the examination. This notification is in addition to any other pre-arrival notice to the Coast Guard required by other regulations and must include: ( i ) The name of the vessel's first U.S. port of call;
( ii ) The date the vessel is scheduled to arrive;
( iii ) The name and telephone number of the owner's local agent; and
( iv ) The names of all cargoes listed in Table 4 of this part that are on board the vessel;
( 3 ) Make sure that the following items are available on board the vessel for the use of the Marine Inspector before beginning the examination required by § 154.150: ( i ) A general arrangement (including the location of firefighting, safety, and lifesaving gear); and
( ii ) The cargo manual required by § 154.1810.
( c ) If the vessel was accepted for U.S. service on the basis of Coast Guard plan review under § 154.22(b), the vessel owner must notify Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center 14 days prior to the vessel's arrival at a U.S. port. This notification must include: ( 1 ) The name of the vessel's first U.S. port of call;
( 2 ) The date the vessel is scheduled to arrive;
( 3 ) The name and telephone number of the owner's local agent; and
( 4 ) The names of all cargoes listed in Table 4 of this part that are on board the vessel.
[CGD 81-052, 50 FR 8734, Mar. 5, 1985; 50 FR 15895, Apr. 23, 1985; CGD 77-069, 52 FR 31630, Aug. 21, 1987; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995; 60 FR 54106, Oct. 19, 1995; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60155, Sept. 30, 2013]
# C_2011226EN.01001502.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 26 May 2011 — Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government v An Bord Pleanala

(Case C-258/11)

2011/C 226/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Applicants:

Defendant: An Bord Pleanala

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), having ‘an adverse effect on the integrity of the site’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), having ‘an adverse effect on the integrity of the site’?

1

| 2. | Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that such a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent non-renewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that such a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent non-renewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question?

| 3. | What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. OJ L 206, p. 7

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 ,
 
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.
 
 HOMELAND SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATIONMarch 11, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Michael T. BriganteName:
    Michael T. BriganteTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
Appendix C

PICTURES FROM THE SAMPLING EPISODE
C-1

Figure C-1. Sampler Working Inside a “Cleanbox”
C-2

Figure C-2. Sample Tap and Tubing at the Influent to the FGD Wastewater Treatment 

System
C-3

Figure C-3. Sample Collection Set Up at the Pump-Off Station
C-4

Figure C-4. Composite Sample Collection Set Up at the Influent to the Bioreactor System
C-5

Figure C-5. Composite Sample Collection Set Up at the Effluent from the Bioreactor 

System
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.

§ 153.527 Toxic vapor protection. When Table 1 refers to this section, a tankship must have on board for each crew member: ( a ) An emergency escape breathing apparatus (EEBA) approved by the Mining Safety and Health Administration (formerly the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or the tankship's flag administration.
( b ) Where the emergency escape breathing apparatus does not protect the eyes from vapors, a set of goggles that either: ( 1 ) Meet the specifications of ANSI Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection, Z-87.1(1979); or
( 2 ) Are approved by the tankship's flag administration.
[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21210, May 17, 1982]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FELIX SOSA, #185709,

Petitioner,

v.

KURT JONES,

Respondent.

Case Number: 02-71797

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

OPINION AND ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

Petitioner, Felix Sosa, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. In 2003, J.

Philip Calabrese and the firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey of Cleveland, Ohio, were appointed

to represent Petitioner by the Sixth Circuit pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, and have handled

his federal claims since then.

The Court acknowledges that there exists no constitutional right to the appointment of

counsel in civil cases, and the Court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be

appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[A]ppointment of counsel in

a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.”)

(internal quotation omitted). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation at any stage of the case

“[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court determines that the interests of justice so

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In the instant case, the Court determines, after careful

consideration, that, in the interests of justice, the appointment of counsel at this time would benefit

Petitioner.
-2-

Accordingly, pursuant to Section III(A)(4) of the Revised Plan for Implementing the

Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3006a, the Court ORDERS that J. Philip

Calabrese and the firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square,

Cleveland, Ohio, 44114, be appointed for Petitioner in this case until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: September 16, 2010

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

on September 16, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Catherine A. Pickles

Judicial Secretary
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.

§ 154.1844 Cargo tanks: Filling limits. ( a ) Unless a higher limit is specified on the certificate the master shall ensure that a cargo tank is not loaded: ( 1 ) More than 98 percent liquid full; or
( 2 ) In excess of the volume determined under the following formula: where: VL = maximum volume to which the tank may be loaded; V = volume of the tank; dr = density at the reference temperature specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and dL = density of the cargo at the loading temperature and pressure.
( b ) The reference temperature to be used in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is the temperature corresponding to the vapor pressure of the cargo at the set pressure of the pressure relief valves.
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.

§ 153.1002 Special operating requirements for heat sensitive cargoes. When Table 1 refers to this section, the master shall make sure that: ( a ) The cargo temperature is maintained below the temperature that would induce polymerization, decomposition, thermal instability, evolution of gas or reaction of the cargo;
( b ) Any heating coils in the cargo tank are blanked off; and
( c ) The cargo is not carried in uninsulated deck tanks.
[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21211, May 17, 1982]
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.

§ 153.1130 Failure of slops discharge recording equipment; operating with, reporting failures, and replacing pollution equipment: Category A, B, C, D. ( a ) If equipment required in §§ 153.470 through 153.488 fails, the Coast Guard Marine Inspection Office, Sector Office, or Captain of the Port must be notified within 24 hours after the failure.
( b ) No person shall replace a piece of equipment required by §§ 153.470 through 153.488 unless the replacement is— ( 1 ) Identical to the original equipment; or
( 2 ) Allowed as an alternative under § 153.10.
( c ) The following conditions apply when discharge recording equipment required under § 153.481(b)(2) fails: ( 1 ) No NLS residue may be discharged unless the approved Procedures and Arrangements Manual contains procedures for discharging with incapacitated discharge recording equipment while meeting the discharge restrictions of § 153.1126(b) and these procedures are followed.
( 2 ) The failure of the discharge recording equipment must be recorded in the Cargo Record Book within 24 hours after the failure.
( 3 ) If the ship operates under a Certificate of Inspection, the failed discharge recording equipment must be repaired or replaced within 60 days after it fails, and the repair or replacement recorded in the Cargo Record Book and reported to the Coast Guard within 24 hours after it is completed.
[CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7785, Mar. 12, 1987, as amended by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36330, July 2, 2007]
**Exhibit 23.1**

#  

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

#  

To the Board of DirectorsNorthern California Bancorp Inc.Monterey, California

 

 

We hereby consent to the use in the 10-KSB for the Northern CaliforniaBancorp Inc. of our report dated February 17, 2004 relating to thefinancial statements of the Northern California Bancorp Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2003 and 2002 and for the three years then ended.

 

 
| /s/ Hutchinson and Bloodgood, LLP |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
| Watsonville, California           |
| March 19, 2004               |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUZANNE FRIED,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 14-12865

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ORDER

This mater came before the court on plaintiff Suzanne Fried’s May 7, 2015 Motion to Enforce

Protective Order. Defendant Experian Information Solutions ("EIS") filed a response May 21, 2015. 

No reply was filed, and no oral argument was heard.

The parties to this action previously submitted a Stipulated Protective Order which was signed

by the court and filed November 6, 2014. The parties agreed that "[d]ocuments deemed to be

proprietary or confidential by any party, and designated as such in accordance with the provisions

of the Agreement, are subject to this Protective Order." Agreement at ¶ 5.

Plaintiff contends that defendant EIS produced a number of documents in discovery that were

designated confidential and that now EIS seeks to file redacted copies of some of those same

documents. EIS explains that the three documents in question are Automated Consumer Dispute

Verification Forms ("A/CDV's"). EIS agrees that the A/CDV's contain personal information about

Plaintiff, such as her address and Social Security Number, which must be protected. For that reason,

EIS has redacted that information from the records it seeks to file.

5:14-cv-12865-JCO-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 376
Plaintiff Fried did not file a reply to EIS's response; therefore, the court can find no reason not

to allow the redacted forms to be filed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's May 7, 2015 Motion to Enforce

Protective Order is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 30, 2015

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

this date, June 30, 2015, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:14-cv-12865-JCO-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 377
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.151-53 Notice to OCMI of servicing. ( a ) Before servicing an inflatable liferaft under the servicing facility's Coast Guard approval, the owner or operator of the facility must tell the cognizant OCMI for each liferaft to be serviced— ( 1 ) The make and size of the liferaft;
( 2 ) The age of the liferaft; and
( 3 ) Whether the liferaft is due for a five-year inflation test.
( b ) The OCMI will inform the servicing facility whether the servicing of the liferaft must be witnessed by an inspector.
( c ) If the OCMI requires the servicing of the liferaft to be witnessed by an inspector— ( 1 ) The servicing facility must arrange a schedule with the OCMI that will allow a Coast Guard inspector to travel to the site where the servicing is to occur;
( 2 ) The owner or operator of the servicing facility, by permission of the OCMI, may arrange for the servicing to be witnessed instead by a third-party inspector accepted by the OCMI if a Coast Guard marine inspector is not available in a timely manner; and
( 3 ) The servicing facility must not begin servicing the liferaft until the inspector arrives at the site.
( d ) No deviation from servicing-manual procedures may occur without the prior approval of the OCMI. To request the approval of a deviation, the owner or operator of the servicing facility shall notify the OCMI of the proposed deviation from the procedures, and must explain to the OCMI the need for the deviation.
§ 641.10 Purpose. These procedures are designed to elicit and evaluate information that will inform the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the potential environmental consequences of proposed U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) actions, so that relevant environmental considerations are taken into account by decisionmakers before reaching final decisions on whether or how to proceed with proposed actions. These procedures are consistent with and implement the requirements of: ( a ) Executive Order 12114 as it relates to NSF's Antarctic activities, and
( b ) the environmental assessment provisions of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-929 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ATOMIC ENERGY 

Cooperation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Washington September 29, 2009 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ITALY 

Atomic Energy: Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Washington September 29, 2009; 

 Entered into force September 29, 2009.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1221

In Re: BILLY DARRYL FLOYD; In Re: ARLIE LAWSON

RUSHING,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (MISC-00-7-1)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Darryl Floyd, Arlie Lawson Rushing, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Darryl Floyd and Arlie Lawson Rushing petition this

court for a writ of mandamus. They ask that we order the district

court to release certified copies of a subpoena to testify before

a grand jury and an order to show cause for failure to honor the

subpoena, both documents sealed by order of the court.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner bears the

burden of showing that his right to the relief sought is plain and

indisputable, that respondent has a clear duty to perform the requested act, and that petitioner has no other avenues of relief.

See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.

1988).

Floyd and Rushing have failed to sustain this burden by

showing their clear entitlement to the sealed documents. Therefore, we deny their motion for judicial notice and their request

for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 Quarterly Report of Artificial Life, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eberhard Schoneburg, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (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/ Eberhard Schoneburg

 

Eberhard Schoneburg

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer

July 25, 2008

 

----
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We, Peter Loretto, Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Orient
Petroleum Ltd., and Barry MacNeil, Chief Financial Officer of Trans-Orient
Petroleum Ltd., certify that:

|1. | The annual report on Form 20-F of Trans-Orient Petroleum Ltd. for the
      period ending July 31, 2006 (with other information to December 29, 2006
      except where noted) (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of
      Trans-Orient Petroleum Ltd.                                                                                                                      

Date: January 26, 2007

/s/ Peter Loretto

Peter Loretto President,Chief Executive
Officer and Director (the principal executive officer)

/s/ Barry MacNeilBarry MacNeil
Corporate Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Director (the
principal financial officer)

---
Exhibit
      32.1





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 an Amendment to the Annual Report of Migo Software, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Kent Heyman, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
              Kent HeymanKent
              HeymanChief
              Executive OfficerApril 27, 2007