alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.060-5 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_zlocations.html .* Also, it is available for inspection from the at Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-5PS), Attn: Director of Commercial Regulations, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also from the sources listed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
( b ) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3 rue Varembe, P.O. Box 131, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. ( 1 ) IEC 60529, Classification of Degrees of Protection by Enclosures (IP Code), Edition 2.1 consolidated with amendment 1:1999 (dated February, 2001), IBR approved for § 162.060-30.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case postale 56 CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. ( 1 ) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories, Second Edition (dated May 15, 2005), IBR approved for § 162.060-36.
( 2 ) ISO/IEC 17025:2005/Cor.1:2006(E), General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, Technical Corrigendum 1, (dated August 15, 2006), IBR approved for § 162.060-36.
( d ) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental Technology Verification Program, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104), Edison, New Jersey 08837. ( 1 ) EPA/600/R-10/146, Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technologies, version 5.1, (dated September 2010), IBR approved for §§ 162.060-26 and 162.060-28 (ETV Protocol).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2001-10486, 77 FR 17311, Mar. 23, 2012, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60160, Sept. 30, 2013]
§ 11.516 Service requirements for national endorsement as third assistant engineer of steam, motor, and/or gas turbine-propelled vessels. ( a ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for endorsement as third assistant engineer of steam, motor, and/or gas turbine-propelled vessels is— ( 1 ) Three years of service in the engineroom of vessels, 2 years of which must have been as a qualified member of the engine department or equivalent position;
( 2 ) Three years of service as an apprentice to the machinist trade engaged in the construction or repair of marine, locomotive, or stationary engines, together with 1 year of service in the engineroom as oiler, fireman/watertender, or junior engineer;
( 3 ) Graduation from— ( i ) The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (engineering curriculum);
( ii ) The U.S. Coast Guard Academy and completion of an onboard engineer officer qualification program required by the service;
( iii ) The U.S. Naval Academy and completion of an onboard engineer officer qualification program required by the service; or
( iv ) The engineering class of a Maritime Academy approved by and conducted under the rules prescribed by the Maritime Administrator and listed in part 310 of this title;
( 4 ) Graduation from the marine engineering course of a school of technology accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, together with 3 months of service in the engine department of steam, motor, or gas turbine-propelled vessels;
( 5 ) Graduation from the mechanical or electrical engineering course of a school of technology accredited by the ABET, together with 6 months of service in the engine department of steam, motor, or gas turbine-propelled vessels;
( 6 ) Satisfactory completion of a comprehensive apprentice engineers training program approved by the Coast Guard; or
( 7 ) One year of service as assistant engineer (limited) of self-propelled vessels and completion of the appropriate examination described in subpart I of this part.
( b ) Experience gained in the deck department on vessels of 100 GRT or more can be credited for up to 3 months of the service requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( c ) A person holding this endorsement may qualify for an STCW endorsement, according to §§ 11.327, 11.329, and 11,333 of this part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20627 

 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

DAVID JUAREZ, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On March 16, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on March 16, 

2015, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 34, is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 33, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: April 7, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:14-cr-20627-TLL-PTM ECF No. 37, PageID.115 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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 April 7, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager 

Case 1:14-cr-20627-TLL-PTM ECF No. 37, PageID.116 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****U.S. Army Corps of Engineersrecreation study [electronic resource] : a plan prepared for the AssistantSecretary of the Army (Civil Works)**
 
SuDoc Number:D 103.2:R 24/9/V.1-2

Item Number:0337 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000862000
 
Volumes: 0102
 
March 24, 2020
#### OTIS WILLIS v. JOHN A. BOEHME.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the appellant, *Ward Kramer.*

Eor the respondent, *William Hartshorne.*

Per Curiam.

The present suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover a commission from the defendant, who was a real estate agent in Asbury Park and Bradley Beach. The latter having become aware that one Mrs. Haschert was intending to purchase a summer home in that neighborhood and knowing that she was related to the plaintiff, sought him out and promised that if he could get Mrs. Haschert to purchase property which was in his (the defendant’s) hands for sale as a real estate broker he would pay the plaintiff half the commissions received for the sale. The plaintiff accepted the offer and showed Mrs. Haschert various pieces of property in that locality which had been placed by the respective owners thereof with the defendant for sale, with the result that she became interested in one of them and negotiated with the defendant for its purchase, and that purchase was finally consummated. Plaintiff then requested the defendant to pay him the one-half of the commission received by him from the *473latter on the sale, and this request was refused. He then instituted the present suit and the trial resulted in a verdict in his favor. Prom the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

The single ground upon which we are asked to reverse the judgment under review is that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a nonsuit or a verdict for the defendant. These motions were made upon the theory that it conclusively appeared that the plaintiff while acting as the representative of Mrs. Haschert in the transaction was attempting to persuade her to purchase the property in order that he might share in the commissions to be paid by the owner in case of the sale; and the argument is that public policy will not recognize the validity of a contract such as that now before us when these facts are made to appear. We have no quarrel with the legal proposition, but our examination of the case satisfies us that it was a disputed question of fact at the trial whether the plaintiff was or was not acting in a dual capacity, that is, acting as the representative of Mrs. Haschert in the transaction and also attempting for his own benefit to persuade her to purchase the property. This being so it was for the jury, not for the court, to determine the status of the plaintiff in the transaction leading to the purchase of the property by Mrs. Haschert; and, consequently, the motions to nonsuit and to direct a verdict for the defendant were each of them properly refused.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Summer Study on DSB 2007 Summer Study: Challenges to Military Operations in Support of National Interests meet in closed session on April 25, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess technological, operational, and policy oriented solutions.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at                         *clifton.phillips@osd.mil*, or via phone at (703) 571-0083.                    

Dated: March 27, 2007.

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-1601 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
§ 122.740 Periodic servicing of hydrostatic release units. ( a ) Each hydrostatic release unit, other than a disposable unit, must be serviced: ( 1 ) Within 12 months of its manufacture and within 12 months of each subsequent servicing, except when servicing is delayed until the next scheduled inspection of the vessel, provided that the delay does not exceed 5 months; and
( 2 ) In accordance with the repair and testing procedure under § 160.062 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( b ) Each disposable hydrostatic release unit must be marked in clearly legible letters with an expiration date of two years after the date on which the unit is installed.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.176-6 Procedure for approval of design or material revision. ( a ) Each change in design, material, or construction must be approved by the Commandant before being used in lifejacket production.
( b ) Determinations of equivalence of design, construction, and materials may only be made by the Commandant.
# C_2016048EN.01004001.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-63/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Société Air France SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Société Air France SA;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Société Air France SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Société Air France SA;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K FOR PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                          40,581
<SECURITIES>                                    59,969
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,172
<PP&E>                                           6,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,098
<BONDS>                                        111,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,420
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,843
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,568
<CGS>                                          150,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (382)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,949
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011298EN.01001003.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/10

---

Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-366/11)

2011/C 298/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not having prepared, by 22 December 2009, river basin district management plans (both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts) and by not having communicated to the Commission, by 22 March 2010, a copy of the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. (1) In addition, by having not commenced, by 22 December 2008 at the latest, the public information and consultation procedure concerning the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not having prepared, by 22 December 2009, river basin district management plans (both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts) and by not having communicated to the Commission, by 22 March 2010, a copy of the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. (1) In addition, by having not commenced, by 22 December 2008 at the latest, the public information and consultation procedure concerning the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive, and

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementation of Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council expired on 22 December 2003. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not taken all the measures necessary to implement the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

1

---
#### HILLSIDE BUS OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided January 3, 1929.

Before Justices Minturn, Black and Campbell.

For the rule, *Nicholas S. Schloeder.*

Contra, *William, II. Speer*and *John W. Queen.*

Per Curiam.

We find that the writ applied for should not be allowed. 'The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.