alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 161

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 161.002-2 Definitions.

In this subpart, the term—

*Device* means individual components (*e.g.* detectors, control panels, alarms, etc.) that are used to comprise a fire detection system. Devices may receive Coast Guard approval in accordance with § 161.002-19.

*Fire detection or fire detection and alarm systems system* means a complete detection system that is designed to give warning of the presence of fire or smoke in the protected spaces. A complete system includes normal and emergency power supplies, control units, remote annunciator panels, fire detectors and/or smoke detectors, manual pull stations, and audible and visual alarms, which are distinct from the alarms of any other system not indicating fire.

*Listed* means equipment or materials included in a list published by an organization that is an accepted independent laboratory, as defined in 46 CFR 159.010, or a nationally recognized testing laboratory, as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.7, whose listing states that either the equipment or material meets appropriate designated standards.

*Nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL)* means an organization that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recognized as meeting the requirements in 29 CFR 1910.7. These requirements are for the capability, control programs, complete independence, and reporting and complaint-handling procedures to test and certify specific types of products for workplace safety. This means, in part, that an organization must have the necessary capability both as a product safety testing laboratory and as a product certification body to receive OSHA recognition as an NRTL.

*Sample extraction smoke detection systems* means systems that collect and analyze air samples from protected spaces in order to detect products of combustion. A complete system includes a control unit, a blower box, accumulators, and a piping system with associated fittings.

[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48274, July 22, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 147
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 147.95 Explosives. ( a ) *Explosives—general.* Except as provided for elsewhere in this subchapter, explosives, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50, which are hazardous ships' stores must be stowed in accordance with 49 CFR 176.116 through 176.138.
( b ) *Small arms ammunition.* ( 1 ) No person shall bring, have in their possession, or use on board a vessel any small arms ammunition, except by express permission of the master of the vessel.
( 2 ) All small arms ammunition must be stowed and locked in a metal closed cargo transport unit for Class 1 (explosive) materials as defined in 49 CFR 176.2. The key to the cargo transport unit must be kept in the possession of the master or a person designated by the master.
( c ) *Ships' signals and emergency equipment.* ( 1 ) Explosive ships' signals and emergency equipment, including pyrotechnic distress signals and line throwing equipment, must be stowed in watertight containers or wood lined magazine chests.
( 2 ) All pyrotechnic distress signals, rockets, and line throwing guns must be stowed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 176.140 through 176.146.
[CGD 84-044, 53 FR 7749, Mar. 10, 1988, as amended by CGD 92-100, 59 FR 17001, Apr. 11, 1994; CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51048, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60154, Sept. 30, 2013]
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# DATE AND TIME:

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 10 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g.

Audits conducted purusant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. 

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

                        Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer,                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 694-1220.                    

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-1714 Filed 4-3-07; 2:56 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
# C_2011347EN.01000701.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

(Case C-364/11)

2011/C 347/10

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa, Chadi Amin A Radi, Kamel Ismail Hazem

Applicants:

Defendants: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive?

1

| 2. | Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

1

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

COLETTE KNIGHT, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14513 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #15), 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(ECF #10), (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF #13), AND (4) REMANDING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM 

FOR BENEFITS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

On August 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff 

Colette Knight’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #10) and deny the 

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Judgment 

(ECF #13). (See ECF #15.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that 

Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits be remanded to the Commissioner 

of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. (See id. at 1, 

10-11, Pg. ID 354, 363-364.) The R&R stated that the parties could object to and 

2:14-cv-14513-MFL-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 366
2 

seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days. (See id. at 11, Pg. ID 

364.) 

Neither party has objected to the R&R. Failure to file objections to the 

R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to 

the Magistrate Judge’s R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently 

review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has 

nevertheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of 

the Magistrate Judge. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 

September 3, 2015, Report and Recommendation (ECF #15) is ADOPTED as the 

Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the 

R&R, that (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #10) is 

GRANTED, (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #13) is 

DENIED, and (3) Plaintiff’s claim for benefits is REMANDED for further 

proceedings consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 8, 2015 

2:14-cv-14513-MFL-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 367
3 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on October 8, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-14513-MFL-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 368
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.

§ 153.972 Connecting a cargo hose. The person in charge of cargo transfer may not authorize the connection of a hose to a cargo containment system unless: ( a ) He has ensured himself that the cargo will not weaken or damage the hose;
( b ) The hose is marked as meeting the standards of § 153.940;
( c ) The date of the hose's last pressure test is within one year of the date on which the hose is used to transfer cargo;
( d ) The recommended working pressure marked on a hose used for discharge meets or exceeds the working pressure marked on the cargo piping at the hose connection; and
( e ) The cargo's temperature is within the manufacturer's recommended maximum and minimum hose temperatures.
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.

§ 153.30 Special area endorsement. The Coast Guard endorses the Certificate of Inspection of a United States ship allowing it to operate in special areas if the ship owner— ( a ) Requests the endorsement following the procedures in § 153.8;
( b ) Shows that the ship meets the design and equipment requirements applying to ships operating in special areas contained in Regulations 5, 5A, and 8 of Annex II and the Standards for Procedures and Arrangements.
[CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7780, Mar. 12, 1987]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.073-1 Scope. ( a ) This subpart contains requirements for a float-free link used for connecting a life float or buoyant apparatus painter to a vessel. The float-free link is designed to be broken by the buoyant force of the life float or buoyant apparatus so that the float or apparatus breaks free of a vessel that sinks in water deeper than the length of the painter.
( b ) [Reserved]
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WANDA PERNELL-HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OAKLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-14621 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

 / 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS [6] 

 On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Whistleblower Protection Act suit in 

Michigan state court. On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant suit in this 

Court, alleging retaliation in violation of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and 

Michigan discrimination law. Plaintiff’s state and federal complaints rested on the 

same factual allegations. A stipulated dismissal of the state court case was entered 

on January 5, 2015. On February 3, 2015, Defendant filed the instant Motion to 

Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. # 6], arguing that the stipulated 

dismissal bars further proceedings in this case under the doctrine of res judicata. 

Plaintiff filed a Response [9] on March 10, 2015. Defendant filed a Reply [11] on 
2 

March 24, 2015. The Court held a hearing on the motion on August 4, 2015. For 

the reasons stated on the record, as supplemented below, Defendant’s motion is 

DENIED. 

 “Federal courts must give the same preclusive effect to a statecourt judgment as that judgment receives in the rendering state.” Buck v. Thomas 

M. Cooley Law School, 597 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Abbott v. 

Michigan, 474 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir. 2007)). The Sixth Circuit and Michigan 

courts have recognized that a court may decline to apply res judicata where its 

application would violate overriding public policy or result in manifest injustice. 

Id. at 819 (citing United States v. LaFatch, 565 F.2d 81, 84 (6th Cir. 1977); Storey 

v. Meijer, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 169, 173 n. 9 (Mich. 1988)); see also, e.g., Seba v. 

Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 2009 WL 3110572 (Ct. App. Mich. Sept. 29, 2009) 

(unpublished) (“Res judicata is applied if it does not offend public policy or result 

in manifest injustice.”) (quoting Storey, 429 N.W.2d at 173 n.9). The Court holds 

that application of res judicata to bar further proceedings in this case would 

contravene the policies behind the doctrine and result in manifest injustice. 

 For the reasons stated on the record, as supplemented above, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on 

the Pleadings [6] is DENIED. 
3 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: August 7, 2015 Senior United States District Judge
tFluetGasSTACKSampleProbeAmbientAmbientorSampleValveBoxReturntoStackHEATERSampleShut-offValveHEATERFIGURE2.SIGRISTPARTICULATEMATTERCEMSHEATERtoPhotometerPhotometervSAMPLEBUILDING1o9/23/051LILFIG21020305
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.

§ 154.429 Calculations. The tank design load calculations for a membrane tank must include the following: ( a ) Plastic deformation and fatigue life resulting from static and dynamic loads in the membrane and the supporting insulation.
( b ) The response of the membrane and its supporting insulation to vessel motion and acceleration under the worst weather conditions. Calculations from a similar vessel may be submitted to meet this paragraph.
( c ) The combined strains from static, dynamic, and thermal loads.
Case 1:11-cv-01841-JEB Document 53 Filed 09/08/15 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.

§ 154.524 Piping joints: Welded and screwed couplings. Pipe lengths without flanges must be joined by one of the following: ( a ) A butt welded joint with complete penetration at the weld root except that for design temperatures colder than −10 °C (14 °F) the butt weld must be double welded or must be welded using: ( 1 ) A backing ring that for design pressures greater than 979 kPa gauge (142 psig) must be removed after the weld is completed;
( 2 ) A consumable insert; or
( 3 ) An inert gas back-up on the first weld pass.
( b ) A slip-on welded joint with sleeves and attachment welds is allowed for an open ended pipe with an external diameter of 50 mm (2 in.) or less and a design temperature of −55 °C (−67 °F), or warmer.
( c ) A socket weld fitting with attachment welds is allowed for pipe with an external diameter of 50 mm (2 in.) or less and a design temperature of −55 °C (−67 °F) or warmer.
( d ) Screwed couplings are allowed for instrumentation and control piping that meets § 56.30-20 and § 56.50-105 (a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter.
( e ) A method or fitting 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]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.062-1 Applicable specifications, and referenced material. ( a ) *Specifications and standards.* The following specifications of the issue in effect on the date releases are manufactured or reconditioned shall form a part of the regulations of this subpart (see §§ 2.75-17 through 2.75-19 of subchapter A (Procedures Applicable to the Public) of this chapter): ( 1 ) Military Specifications and Standards: MIL-R-15041C—Releases, lifesaving equipment, hydraulic and manual. MIL-STD-105—Sample procedures and tables for inspection by attributes.
( 2 ) Federal Test Method Standards: Standard No. 151—Metals, test methods.
( b ) *Technical references.* For guidance purposes the technical reference may be used, which is entitled “Corrosion Handbook,” 1948, by H. H. Uhlig, and published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016, and priced at $21 per copy.
( c ) *Copies on file.* A copy of the specifications and standards listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall be kept on file by the manufacturer, together with the approved plans, specifications and certificate of approval. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to have the latest issue, including addenda and changes, of these specifications and standards on hand when manufacturing or reconditioning equipment under this specification subpart. ( 1 ) The military specifications and standards may be obtained from the Military Specifications and Standards, Standardization Documents Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, *https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ .*
( 2 ) The Federal standards may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service, Office of the FAS Commissioner, 2200 Crystal Drive, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone 703-605-5400.
[CGFR 68-32, 33 FR 5721, Apr. 12, 1968, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60158, Sept. 30, 2013]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0918 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-090-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date