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.

§ 151.02-1 Conditions under which equivalents may be used. ( a ) Where in this part it is provided that a particular fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, shall be fitted or carried in a vessel, or that any particular provision shall be made or arrangement including cargo segregation shall be adopted, the Commandant may accept in substitution therefor any other fitting, material, apparatus or equipment, or type thereof, or any other provision or arrangement. However, the Commandant shall be satisfied by suitable evidence that the fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, or the type thereof, or the provision or arrangement shall be at least as effective as that specified in this part.
( b ) In any case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the use of any particular equipment, apparatus, or arrangement not specifically required by law is unreasonable or impracticable, the Commandant may permit the use of alternate equipment apparatus, or arrangement to such an extent and upon such conditions as will insure, to his satisfaction, a degree of safety consistent with the minimum standards set forth in this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,411,898
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,221,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 20,380,856
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     23,947,551
<ALLOWANCE>                                    245,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,849,971
<DEPOSITS>                                  46,528,064
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            268,437
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,192,528
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,860,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              52,849,971
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                593,786
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              260,690
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                41,014
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               895,490
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             350,210
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             350,210
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          545,280
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                694,755
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,730
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     127,730
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.74
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   299
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       97
<RECOVERIES>                                        28
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  245
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               245
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            245
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2

Natural Gas Systems, Inc.
Employment Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT("Agreement")is entered into as of
November 10, 2003, by and betweenSterling McDonald(the "Employee") and Natural Gas Systems, Inc.,
 a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

1.Duties and Scope of Employment.



2.Cash and Incentive Compensation.



1

---





3.Vacation and Employee Benefits.During his Employment, the Employee shall be eligible for paid vacations in accordance
with the Company's vacation policy, as it may be amended from time to time. During his Employment, the Employee shall be eligible to participate in the employee benefit plans maintained by the
Company, subject in each case to the generally applicable terms and conditions of the plan in question and to the determinations of any person or committee administering such plan.

4.Business Expenses.During his Employment, the Employee shall be authorized to incur necessary and reasonable travel,
entertainment and other business expenses in connection with his duties hereunder. The Company shall reimburse the Employee for such expenses upon presentation of an itemized account and appropriate
supporting documentation, all in accordance with the Company's generally applicable policies.

5.Term of Employment.



6.Termination Benefits.



2

---





7.Non-Solicitation and Non-Disclosure.



8.Successors.



3

---





9.Arbitration.



10.Miscellaneous Provisions.



4

---





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this employment Agreement, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer,
as of the day and year first above written.

| | Employee                                    
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Natural Gas Systems, Inc.                   
| | By Robert S. Herlin
Title: CEO and President

5

---



EXHIBIT A
INVENTIONS ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT

6

---



EXHIBIT A
STOCK OPTION PLAN

7

---



EXHIBIT C
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

8

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, )

)

) Case No.: 14-cv-14805

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) 

DOES 1-20, )

 ) 

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT

DOE #13, OWNER OF IP ADDRESS 76.112.237.169

Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice as to the 

Defendant identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint as DOE # 13, said Defendant is also identified in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as the holder of the IP address 76.112.237.169.

DATED: June 2, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC

By : s/Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul Nicoletti (P-44419)

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

33717 Woodward Avenue, Ste. #433

Birmingham, MI 48009

Landline: (248) 203-7800

eFax: (248) 928-7051

Email: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

http://www.nicolettilawplc.com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC

2:14-cv-14805-PJD-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 06/02/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 48
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PHILLIP CHARLES GIBBS, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 14-cv-14028 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

JEFFREY WOODS, 

 Respondent. 

__________________________________________________________________________/ 

JUDGMENT

The above entitled action came before the Court on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. In accordance with the Opinion and Order entered on September 9, 2020: 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that permission to appeal in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED. 

 DAVID J. WEAVER 

 CLERK OF THE COURT 

 By: s/Holly A. Monda 

 Deputy Clerk 

Approved: 

s/Matthew F. Leitman________ Dated: September 9, 2020 

Matthew F. Leitman Flint, Michigan 

United States District Court 

Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 41 filed 09/09/20 PageID.1776 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.022-7 Procedure for approval. ( a ) Signals are approved by the Coast Guard under the procedures in subpart 159.005 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
* P ursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________ No. 97-60007

____________________
PASADENA ENT CLINIC, P A

Petitioner - Appellant

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Respondent - Appellee

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court (23236-94)

_________________________________________________________________ February 4, 1998 Before KING, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 47.6.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7774

DONNELL S. BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF MCCABE; JOHN DOE, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees, and NORFOLK CITY JAIL, Medical Department; MR. LATNEY, Administrator of the Norfolk City Jail Medical Staff, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-758-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.* Although the district court’s order is date stamped November 2, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 5, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2Donnell S. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Deborah Sue Prince, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Donnell Byrd appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We havereviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Byrd v. McCabe , No. CA-97-758-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 1998). * 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2013123EN.01001602.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2013 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-229/11 and T-276/11) (1)

1

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Additional pension scheme - Decisions rejecting applications seeking to benefit from the provisions in force before the amendment to the additional pension scheme in 2009 - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

2013/C 123/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Lord Inglewood (Penrith, United Kingdom), and the other 10 applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment (Case T-229/11); and Marie-Arlette Carlotti (Marseilles, France) (Case T-276/11) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, M. Windisch and K. Pocheć, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Applications for annulment of the European Parliament’s decisions refusing to grant the applicants their voluntary additional pension early, at the age of 60 or in part in the form of a lump sum

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Lord Inglewood and the other 10 applicants whose names are set out in the Annex, as well as Ms Marie-Arlette Carlotti, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lord Inglewood and the other 10 applicants whose names are set out in the Annex, as well as Ms Marie-Arlette Carlotti, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly report of MYCOM GROUP, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Earnest Mathis, Jr., Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



                                          /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                          -----------------------
                                          Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                          Chief Executive Officer,
                                          November 13, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Agate Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No.
333-81677) of our report dated June 12, 2001, which contains an emphasis
paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Company's ability to continue as
a going concern, on the consolidated financial statements of Agate Technologies,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2001 and for the two years then ended,
which report appears in its Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2001.


SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN, LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 29, 2001
# C_2014421EN.01002901.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Portovesme v Commission

(Case T-291/11) (1)

1

((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - New aid - Equal treatment - Reasonable period))

2014/C 421/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Portovesme Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Ciulli, G. Dore, M. Liberati and A. Vinci, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, primarily, for the annulment in whole or in part ‘to the extent deemed reasonable’ of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05)) (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for annulment of that decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid in question.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Portovesme Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Portovesme Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

1

---
February 15, 2016

Shawn Santana

10650 Cliff Ridge Ave.

Las Vegas, NV 89129

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Shawn Santana and I am the president of Pure Aloha Community Development Corporation, 

a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in Las Vegas, NV. I am commenting today to request exemption from 

the FAA and allowance to operate a drone during specified times and location, in accordance to FAA 

Section 333. The drone I own is a Yuneec Typhoon Q500+. 

Pure Aloha CDC, alongside Vizzun Ent., hosts the largest Polynesian festival in Southern Nevada, Pure 

Aloha. Our biannual events are held every April and October, and strive to bring awareness to the 

Polynesian culture, through cultural activities, demonstrations and performances. 

Our upcoming event will be held April 14-17 at the Silverton Hotel and Casino in the parking lot. I am 

kindly requesting to be allowed to operate the drone during these dates. The drone has HD video 

capabilities, and allows us to capture moments from a birds eye view. The amazing footage that is 

captured in turn benefits the public through shared videos. 

I have flown this drone in a wide variety of locations, from my backyard while standing on pavement, to 

operating it on a boat in a lake. Through online trainings and personal practice, I am confident in my 

operational skills. I take pride in placing safety first, and abiding by rules to avoid any potential harm to 

myself, others, and property. 

While the event takes place, I would love to use the drone to capture additional footage. I only plan to 

fly at safe heights (specifically below 200 feet), and keep the drone out of reach from large crowds. 

There will be a designated landing area that will be kept clear of all foot traffic, and allow the drone to 

land safely. The drone also has GPS capabilities, so that in the rare chance I lose operational control, the 

drone is programmed to return and land in the designated area. 

I kindly ask to be allowed to fly the drone during the dates of April 14-17, 2016, at the Silverton Hotel 

and Casino parking lot. The drone will only be operated outdoors, and I will be the only operator 

handling this machine. 

If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 702-604-9438.

Thank you for your time,

Shawn Santana
----

----

| (1)    | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Dated:      February 27, 2008 | /s/  Patrick      J. Goodman                 |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Patrick      J. Goodman                                |
|                          | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                          | (principal      financialofficer)                      |
March 26 , 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting N otes for the March 19 , 201 3 Conference Call with Alstom

FROM: John Bradfield (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0640

This memorandum summarizes the conference call between Alstom and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) on March 26 , 2013 . The purpose of the meeting was to discuss electrostatic precipitator ( ESP ) operation and parametric monitoring.

Meeting Attendees:

Mikael Arningsmark

– Alstom

Steve Francis

– Alstom

Pa ulo Oliveira

– Alstom

Paul Yosick

– Alstom

John Bradfield

– EPA/SPPD

Discussion Points:

E lectrostatic precipitator operation and parametric monitoring were discussed. It was noted that the measurement of secondary power input from the transformer/rectifier set (T/R) into the operating ESP provides the best feedback regarding the operating efficiency of the unit during times when the opacity meter malfunctions. It was also noted that the voltage measurement varies greatly with fuels and flue gas constitutes, therefore it is not a reliable stand

- alone measurement. Opacity monitoring was suggested as the best method for monitoring the emissions from an ESP.
----

See Figures 12 and 13 for location of disposal site and compare to multibeam map in Figure 15.  Note that the bedforms apparent in the multibeam maps are subtle at best in the sidescan data.  In both data types the dredged material deposits appear as isolated high-backscatter circular features that coalesce to form a nearly continuous high-backscatter blanket.  When compared to the multibeam image (Figure 15) the sidescan appears to resolve the boundaries of individual circular high-backscatter features better than the multibeam data.  Scale across the bottom of the image is 5.5 km.

----

----

----

SusanA. Cochran

U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Western RegionCoastal and Marine Geology
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

TARIE HASSAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-14407

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s “Opinion and Order (1) Overruling Plaintiff’s

Objections; (2) Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; (3)

Deeming Moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (4) Denying Plaintiff’s

Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; and (5) Granting Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment” dated March 24, 2016, 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Tarie Hassan. Dated

at Detroit, Michigan, this 24th day of March 2016. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 24, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, March 24, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-14407.HASSAN.Judgement.wpd

2:14-cv-14407-RHC-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 463