alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

Editorial Note on Subpart 151.50 of Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart 151.50 of part 151 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, and CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996.

§ 151.50-55 Sulfur (molten). ( a ) Ventilation (cargo tank): ( 1 ) Cargo tank ventilation shall be provided to maintain the concentration of H2S below one-half of its lower explosive limit throughout the cargo tank vapor space for all conditions of carriage; i.e., below 1.85 percent by volume.
( 2 ) Where mechanical ventilation systems are used for maintaining low gas concentrations in cargo tanks, an alarm system shall be provided to give warning if the system fails.
( 3 ) Connections shall be provided to enable sampling of the atmosphere over the cargo in each cargo tank for analysis.
( 4 ) The ventilation system shall be designed and arranged to preclude the depositing of sulfur within the system.
( b ) Void spaces: ( 1 ) Openings to void spaces adjacent to cargo tanks shall be designed and fitted to prevent the entry of water, sulfur or cargo vapors.
( 2 ) Connections shall be provided to enable sampling and analyzing vapors in void spaces.
( c ) Temperature controls shall be provided in accordance with § 151.20-10 and applicable sections of Subpart 151.40 of this part. Heat transfer media shall be steam, and alternate media will require specific approval of the Commandant.
[CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3714, Feb. 25, 1970]
# C_2013313EN.01002401.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission

(Case T-457/11) (1)

1

(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 313/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of the Commission of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 163, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders Valeo Vision to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Valeo Vision to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2184-2185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-193]



[[Page 2184]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1407


Portable Generators; Final Rule; Labeling Requirements

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects Figures 1 and 3 of the final rule 
requiring manufacturers to label portable generators with performance 
and technical data related to performance and safety.

DATES: This correction is effective May 14, 2007 and applies to any 
portable generator manufactured or imported on or after that date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Smith, Project Manager, 
Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland; telephone (301) 504-7691; or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6216110f0b160a22011211014c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="582c2b35312c30183b282b3b763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Correction

    On January 12, 2007, the Commission issued a final rule requiring 
manufacturers to label portable generators with performance and 
technical data related to performance and safety. 72 FR 1443. Figures 1 
and 3 of the final rule were incorrect. This notice corrects Figures 1 
and 3 so that each reflects the requirements in the text of the final 
rule. For clarity, while Figure 2 remains unchanged, all three Figures 
are provided in this correction. Because this correction is a technical 
correction, notice and comment is unnecessary.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1407

    Consumer protection, Labeling.

0
Accordingly, in rule FR Doc. 07-80 published January 12, 2007 (72 FR 
1443), correct Figures 1 through 3 to part 1407 as published in 72 FR 
1443 to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA07.007


[[Page 2185]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA07.008


    Dated: January 12, 2007.
Todd Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-193 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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.

§ 147.30 Labeling. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all immediate receptacles, containers, or packages containing hazardous ships' stores must be labeled in English with the following information concerning the contents: ( 1 ) Technical name or proper shipping name.
( 2 ) For hazardous ships' stores other than liquid fuels, manufacturer's or supplier's name and address.
( 3 ) Hazard classification under 49 CFR 172.101, 173.2, and 173.2(a).
( 4 ) For hazardous ships' stores other than liquid fuels, step by step procedures for proper use.
( 5 ) First aid instructions in the event of personnel contact, including antidotes in the event of ingestion.
( 6 ) Stowage and segregation requirements.
( b ) Hazardous ships' stores that are consumer commodities labeled in accordance with the Federal Hazardous Substances Act Regulations in 16 CFR part 1500 need not be labeled as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
[CGD 84-044, 53 FR 7749, Mar. 10, 1988, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51048, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2005-22329, 70 FR 57183, Sept. 30, 2005]
#### § 144.810 Storm rails.

On a vessel in oceans or coastwise service, suitable storm rails or hand grabs must be installed in all passageways and at the deckhouse sides where persons onboard might have normal access.
#### § 111.01-13 Limitations on porcelain use.

Porcelain must not be used for lamp sockets, switches, receptacles, fuse blocks, or other electric equipment where the item is solidly mounted by machine screws or their equivalent, unless the porcelain piece is resiliently mounted.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF # 543) 

 On May 20, 2019, Defendant Curtis Scott filed a motion for reconsideration 

of the Court’s previous ruling declining to recuse itself from presiding over this 

action. (See Mot., ECF #543.) Motions for reconsideration in this Court are 

governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). Under that rule, “[a] motion for rehearing or 

reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order.” 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). In addition: 

Generally, and without restricting the Court’s discretion, 

the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or 

reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled 

upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable 

implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a 

palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and 

other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been 

misled but also show that correcting the defect will result 

in a different disposition of the case. 
2 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). 

The Court has carefully reviewed Scott’s motion for reconsideration and 

concludes that he is not entitled to relief. None of the arguments raised in the motion 

persuade the Court that it palpably erred when it declined to recuse itself from 

presiding over this action. Nor has Scott shown that even if such a defect existed, it 

would have resulted in a different disposition of the case. Accordingly, Scott has 

not established an entitlement to relief under Local Rule 7.1(h). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Scott’s motion for reconsideration 

(ECF #543) is DENIED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 22, 2019 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on May 22, 2019, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In tfie Matter of . ) 

) 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the ) 

Oregon Republican Party (A09-18) ) 

CERTIFICATION • 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk ofthe Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on September 23,2010, the Coinmission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on the 

Oregon Republican Party, as recommended in the Audit Division's 

Memorandum dated September 14,2010. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

' bate ^ / Sfe^i^ Woodhead WMh 

^^f^ Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mary H. Cunningham et al., Respondents, *v.*Thomas L. Feitner et al., Constituting the Board of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. Same, Respondents, *v.*Same, Appellants. Same, Respondents, *v.*Same, Appellants. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mary H. Cunningham et al., Respondents, *v.*James L. Wells et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. The People of the State of New York ex rel. The American Manufacturing Company, Respondent, *v.*James L. Wells et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. The People of the State of New York ex rel. The American Manufacturing Company, Respondent, *v.*Frank A. O’Donnel et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants; Same, Respondent, *v.*Same, Appellants

*People ex rel. Cunningham*v. *Feitner,*139 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

*People ex rel. Cunningham*v. *Wells,*139 App. Div. 934, affirmed.

*People ex rel. American Mfg. Co.*v. *Wells,*139 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

*People ex rel. American Mfg. Co.*v. *O’Donnel,*129 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

(Argued November 8, 1909;

decided November 23, 1909.)

Appeal, in each of the above-entitled proceedings, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 30,1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term reducing assessments for purposes of taxation against certain real estate of the relators.

*Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Da/oid Pmnsey*and *Curtis A. Peters*of counsel), for appellants.

*Thomas F. Magner*for respondents.

Orders affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Absent: Hiscock, J.
# C_2008130EN.01001001.xml

| 28.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/10

---

Communication of the Commission on the quantity of certain products in the milk and milk products sector available for the second half of 2008 under certain quotas opened by the Community

(2008/C 130/05)

When import licences were allocated for the first half of 2008 for certain quotas referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (1), applications for licences referred to quantities less than those available for the products concerned. As a result, the quantity available for each quota for the period 1 July to 31 December 2008 should be calculated, taking account of the unallocated quantities resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1464/2007 of 12 December 2007 determining the extent to which the applications for import licences submitted in November 2007 for certain dairy products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted (2) and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 44/2008 of 18 January 2008 determining the extent to which the applications for import licences lodged during the first 10 days of January 2008 for butter originating in New Zealand under quota numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 can be accepted (3).

1

2

3

The quantities available for the period 1 July to 31 December 2008 for the second half of the year of importation of certain quotas referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 are indicated hereunder.

---

(1)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1565/2007 (OJ L 340, 22.12.2007, p. 37).

1

(2)  OJ L 327, 13.12.2007, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2008, p. 7.

3

---

ANNEX I.D

| Products originating in Turkey |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| 09.4101 | 2 300 000 |

Products originating in Turkey

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4101

2 300 000

---

ANNEX III.A

| Butter originating in New Zealand |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| 09.4195 | 20 540 503 |
| 09.4182 | 20 920 600 |

Butter originating in New Zealand

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4195

20 540 503

09.4182

20 920 600

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN JAMES DABNEY, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SHANE PLACE, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

Case Number: 2:14-CV-14935 

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [#3] 

 Petitioner Brian James Dabney, a state prisoner confined at the Baraga Correctional 

Facility in Baraga, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [#3]. 

 A petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus 

review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see 

also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 

(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.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 

1987). 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). 

2:14-cv-14935-GAD-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 144
The Court determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at 

this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel [#3]. 

SO ORDERED. 

 

 

 

Dated: May 20, 2015 s/Gershwin A. Drain 

 Detroit, Michigan GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 20, 2015.

 s/Tanya R. Bankston 

 TANYA R.BANKSTON 

 Case Manager & Deputy Clerk 

2:14-cv-14935-GAD-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 145
§ 14.213 Report of shipment of merchant mariner. ( a ) When a vessel of the United States sails upon a foreign, intercoastal, or coastwise voyage (excluding a voyage on the Great Lakes), each master or individual in charge must, at the commencement of the voyage, send one copy of shipping articles, signed by the master and by each merchant mariner, to the owner, charterer, or managing operator. The master must keep the original throughout the voyage and enter in it all charges made to the crew during the voyage.
( b ) When a vessel of the United States sails exclusively on the Great Lakes— ( 1 ) Each master or individual in charge must, at the commencement of the season, or once the vessel is put into service, whichever occurs earlier, send one copy of articles, signed by the master and by each mariner, to the owner, charterer, or managing operator;
( 2 ) The master or individual in charge must every 60 days send supplementary particulars of engagement covering each mariner engaged during this period, signed by the master and by each mariner, to the owner, charterer, or managing operator; and
( 3 ) The master or individual in charge must, at the close of the season, or once the vessel is withdrawn from service, whichever occurs later, send articles, signed by the master and by each mariner, to the owner, charterer, or managing operator.
( c ) When a vessel of the United States sales exclusively on bays or sounds, each master or individual in charge must, at least every 60 days, send articles, signed by the master and by each mariner, to the owner, charter, or managing operator.
( d ) Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of this section is subject to a civil penalty of $5,000.
[CGD 94-004, 61 FR 56637, Nov. 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77999, Dec. 24, 2013; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014]
# C_2012049EN.01001802.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia), lodged on 19 December 2011 — Ilgvars Brunovskis v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-650/11)

2012/C 49/31

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ilgvars Brunovskis

Appellant:

Respondent: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 125(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the premium which is to be established per suckler cow is applicable to all suckler cows which come into existence during the calendar year? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 125(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the premium which is to be established per suckler cow is applicable to all suckler cows which come into existence during the calendar year?

1

| 2. | Should Article 102(2) of Regulation No 1973/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the period of six months should be regarded as a time-limit for lodging applications for a premium? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 102(2) of Regulation No 1973/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the period of six months should be regarded as a time-limit for lodging applications for a premium?

2

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is affirmative, where a Member State has reduced that time-limit, would the Member State be obliged to pay compensation for losses incurred by a farmer if he did not have the opportunity to make full use of the time-limit for applications established in the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is affirmative, where a Member State has reduced that time-limit, would the Member State be obliged to pay compensation for losses incurred by a farmer if he did not have the opportunity to make full use of the time-limit for applications established in the regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1).

2

---
§ 133.120 Launching stations. ( a ) Each launching station must be positioned to ensure safe launching with clearance from— ( 1 ) The propeller; and
( 2 ) The steeply overhanging portions of the hull.
( b ) Each survival craft must be launched down the straight side of the OSV.
( c ) Each launching station in the forward part of the OSV must— ( 1 ) Be located aft of the collision bulkhead in a sheltered position; and
( 2 ) Have a launching appliance approved as being of sufficient strength for forward installation.
[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25304, May 20, 1996; 61 FR 40281, Aug. 1, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.060-40 Requirements for Independent Laboratories (ILs). Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76704 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) For designation by the Coast Guard as an independent laboratory for the evaluation, inspection, and testing of BWMS, an independent laboratory must demonstrate compliance with 46 CFR 159.010-3, 46 CFR 159.010-5, and 46 CFR 159.010-11 through 159.010-19.
( b ) Each request for designation as an independent laboratory authorized under paragraph (a) of this section must be delivered to the Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, in a written or electronic format.
( c ) A list of independent laboratories designated by the Coast Guard under paragraph (b) of this section may be found at *http://cgmix.uscg.mil/ ,* or may be obtained by contacting the Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509.
[USCG-2001-10486, 77 FR 17311, Mar. 23, 2012, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60161, Sept. 30, 2013]