alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 117.68 Distress flares and smoke signals. ( a ) *Oceans, coastwise, limited coastwise, and Great Lakes routes.* A vessel on an oceans, coastwise, limited coastwise, or Great Lakes route must carry— ( 1 ) Six hand red flare distress signals approved in accordance with § 160.021 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.121; and
( 2 ) Six hand orange smoke distress signals approved in accordance with § 160.037 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( b ) *Lakes, bays, and sounds, and rivers routes.* A vessel on a lakes, bays, and sounds, or rivers route must carry: ( 1 ) Three hand red flare distress signals approved in accordance with § 160.021 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.121; and
( 2 ) Three hand orange smoke distress signals approved in accordance with § 160.037 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( c ) *Substitutions.* ( 1 ) A rocket parachute flare approved in accordance with § 160.036 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, may be substituted for any of the hand red flare distress signals required under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
( 2 ) One of the following may be substituted for any of the hand orange smoke distress signals required under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section: ( i ) A rocket parachute flare approved in accordance with § 160.036 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( ii ) A hand red flare distress signal approved in accordance with § 160.021 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.121.
( iii ) A floating orange smoke distress signal approved in accordance with § 160.022 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.122.
( d ) *Exemption for vessels on short runs.* A vessel operating on short runs limited to approximately 30 minutes away from the dock is not required to carry distress flares and smoke signals under this section.
( e ) *Stowage.* Each flare carried to meet this section must be stowed in one of the following: ( 1 ) A portable watertight container carried at the operating station, and marked as required by § 122.614 of this subchapter; or
( 2 ) A pyrotechnic locker secured above the freeboard deck, away from heat, in the vicinity of the operating station.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 911, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51350, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62469, Oct. 16, 2015]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7557

KENNETH RAY JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-03-197-2)

Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004

Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ray Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ray Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

**DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON**

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800 EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244

 

September 20,2010

 

Evolution PetroleumCorporation

2500 CityWest Blvd.

Suite 1300

Houston, Texas 77042

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We hereby consent to the useof the name DeGolyer and MacNaughton, to references to DeGolyer andMacNaughton, to the inclusion of our “Appraisal Report as of June 30, 2010on Certain Delhi Field Properties owned by Evolution Petroleum Corporation”(our Report), and to the inclusion of information taken from our Report in thesections Business Strategy-Delhi Field CO2 EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) Project,Estimated Oil and Natural Gas Reserves and Estimated Future Net Revenues, Item7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results ofOperations in the Form 10-K of Evolution Petroleum Corporation for theyear ended June 30, 2010.  Wefurther consent to the incorporation by reference of information contained inour report as of June 30, 2010, in the Evolution Petroleum CorporationRegistration Statement No. 333-152136 on Form S-8 and RegistrationStatement No. 333-168107 on Form S-3.

 

 
|   | Very truly yours,                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |
|   |                                     |
|   | /s/DeGolyer and  MacNaughton/            |
|   |                                     |
|   | DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON                 |
|   | Texas  Registered Engineering Firm F-716 |

 

----
**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 the Annual Report of Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as
      filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      knowledge:




1.  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 operation of the Company.


Date:May
                15, 2007
            By:
            */s/
              C. Thomas McMillen*Name:C.
                Thomas McMillenTitle:Chief
                Executive Officer
                (Principal Executive
                  Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      and
      will be retained by Homeland Security Capital Corporation and furnished to
      the
      U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
#### § 12.607 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as rating as able seafarer-engine.

(a) To qualify for an STCW endorsement as an able seafarer-engine, an applicant must—

(1) Be not less than 18 years of age;

(2) Meet the requirements for certification as a ratings forming part of an engineering watch (RFPEW);

(3) While qualified as an RFPEW, have seagoing service in the engine department of—

(i) Not less than 12 months; or

(ii) Not less than 6 months and have completed approved training; and

(4) Provide evidence of meeting the standard of competence specified in Table A-III/5 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see [§ 12.103 of this part](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/part-12/section-12.103)).

(b) Seafarers holding a rating endorsement as QMED, junior engineer, electrician or electrician/refrigerating engineer, pumpman or pumpman/machinist, refrigerating engineer, or machinist before January 1, 2017, will be eligible for this endorsement upon showing evidence of holding an endorsement as an RFPEW.

(c) The Coast Guard may exempt an applicant from meeting any individual knowledge, understanding, and proficiency required in Section A-III/5 of the STCW Code. These exemptions must be approved by the Coast Guard based upon vessel type. Under these circumstances, the endorsement may include a corresponding limitation.

(d) Except as provided in [paragraph (b)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-12.607#p-12.607(b)) of this section, seafarers with the following national rating endorsements will be eligible for this endorsement upon completion of requirements designated in this section:

Table 1 to [§ 12.607](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-12.607)(d)—STCW Endorsement as Able Seafarer-Engine

| Domestic QMED endorsement | Additional sea service for AS-E |
| --- | --- |
| Engineman | None. |
| Deck Engine Mechanic | None. |
| Electrician | 6 months.1 |
| Refrigerating Engineer | 6 months.1 |
| Pumpman | 6 months.1 |
| Machinist | 6 months.1 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Service may be reduced to 3 months if training has been completed as part of an approved training program. | |

[USCG-2004-17914, [78 FR 77975](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-77975), Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2018-0874, [84 FR 30882](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-30882), June 28, 2019]
ASTM D7487-08 Standard Practice for Polyurethane Raw Materials: Polyurethane Foam 

Cup Test
(logo)KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

           60 East South Temple
           Suite 900
           Salt Lake City, UT 84111



                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT



The Board of Directors
Zions Mortgage Company:


We have examined  management's  assertion  about   Zions  Mortgage  Company's (a
wholly owned  subsidiary of Zions First National Bank) (the Company)  compliance
with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS
(USAP)  as of and for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1995,  included   in the
accompanying  management assertion.  Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the  Company's  compliance
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  except  for  the  noncompliance
described  in  the   following   paragraph,   the  Company   complied  with  the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1995 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

As  discussed  in  the  management's  assertion,   the  custodial  bank  account
reconciliations  were not  prepared  within 45 days  after  month-end,  were not
appropriately  reviewed,  and contained reconciling items that were not resolved
within 90 days.



                                                        /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




February 23, 1996



(logo) Member Firm of 
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES F-3 AND F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,304
<PP&E>                                             918
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,956
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,864
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,947)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,750
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,198)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
<FN>
<F1>
</FN>


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0119. ROGER L. HICKS v. PISSARRO WRIGHT, et al.

On August 31, 2020, the trial court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion

for attorney fees and expenses against Roger Hicks. On November 17, 2020, Hicks

filed an application for discretionary appeal seeking review of the trial court’s order.

We lack jurisdiction because Hicks’s application is untimely. 

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420

SE2d 393) (1992). We lack jurisdiction to consider an untimely application. See Hill,

supra. Here, Hicks filed his application 78 days after the trial court’s order was

entered. Accordingly,we lack jurisdiction and the application is herebyDISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 10, 2020

12/10/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BIG GUY’S PINBALL, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW 

 v. Hon. Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

JIMMY LIPHAM, 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

 Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time, filed by the 

Defendant. Defendant requests an extension of time through and including December 10, 2014, 

to answer or otherwise move, as permitted by Rule 12. 

 After reviewing the motion, the Plaintiff’s submissions, and the applicable law, the 

motion is GRANTED. 

 Defendant shall have an extension through and including December 10, 2014, to answer 

or otherwise move. 

 It is so ORDERED. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

 SIGNED this 3RD day of December, 2014. 

 

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 12/03/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 165
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 1
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 2
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 3
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 4
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 5
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 6
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 7
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 8
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 9
2:14-cr-20559-GER-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 09/18/14 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 10
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AULEN UNAN and PATRICIA QUINTINO,

on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff, 

v.

NICK LYON, in his official capacity as

DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF COMMUNITY HEALTH and

DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN SERVICES

Defendant.

_______________________ __________/

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-13470

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER STAYING EXECUTION OF ALL DISCOVERY

At a status conference held on July 23, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to

stay the execution of all discovery pending consideration of Defendants’ forthcoming

motion for summary judgment, to be filed within 30 days of the July 23 hearing date. On

August 4, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike or for Protective Order relating to

discovery matters. (Doc. 64.) This motion is to be heard at oral argument only after the

Court’s stay of discovery is lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 18, 2015 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-13470-MOB-DRG ECF No. 65, PageID.1462 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to

their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on August 18, 2015.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2

Case 2:14-cv-13470-MOB-DRG ECF No. 65, PageID.1463 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         35,103
<SECURITIES>                                   13,154
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                      941
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               67,010
<PP&E>                                         11,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 73,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,355
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          188
<OTHER-SE>                                     64,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   73,749
<SALES>                                        63,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               63,051
<CGS>                                          12,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               44,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 8,288
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,039
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             7,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    7,249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.34
        


</TABLE>
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.

§ 153.296 Emergency shutdown stations. ( a ) Each tankship must have at least two emergency shutdown stations.
( b ) One emergency shutdown station must be located forward of the deckhouse, in the after part of the weatherdeck in which the cargo tanks are located.
( c ) A second emergency shutdown station must be located so that one of the two stations is accessible from any part of the weatherdeck if a break in a cargo piping system or hose causes spraying or leaking.
( d ) Each emergency shutdown station must contain a single remote actuator for all quick closing shutoff valves required by this part.
( e ) Each emergency shutdown station must have the controls necessary to stop all cargo pumps on the tankship.
( f ) Any remote emergency actuator, such as that for a quick closing shut-off valve, a cargo pump, or a water spray system, must be of a type that will not defeat the operation of other remote emergency actuators. The emergency action must occur whether one or several actuators are operated.
( g ) Each emergency shutdown station must be marked as described in § 153.955 (c), (d), and (e) with the legend “EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN STATION” so that the legend is visible from work areas in the part of the deck where the cargo containment systems are located.
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21208, May 17, 1982]