alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 166.01 Approval of nautical school ships. ( a ) Under 46 U.S.C. 7315, graduation from a nautical school vessel may be substituted for the service requirements for able seaman and qualified member of the engine department endorsements on merchant mariner credentials or merchant mariner's documents.
( b ) It has been made to appear to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the school ships operated by the States in which they are located; namely, by the California Maritime Academy, Great Lakes Maritime Academy at Northwestern Michigan College, Maine Maritime Academy, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, New York State Maritime College, and Texas Maritime Academy, and by the United States Merchant Marine Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Coast Guard Academy, have adopted a course of study for their students complying with the rules prescribed by the Commandant, and a system of instruction adequate to equip the deck and engineering students theoretically and physically in the rudiments of seamanship and navigation necessary to qualify the graduates for the rating of “able seamen” and in all branches of marine engineering necessary to qualify the graduates for the rating of “qualified member of the engine department,” respectively.
( c ) The school ships operated by the State organizations and the Federal academies named in paragraph (b) of this section are hereby approved and their graduates, if meeting the other qualifications required by law and regulations promulgated thereunder, are entitled to the rating of able seamen or qualified members of the engine department and to be certified as such.
( d ) A graduate of any of those school ships, if meeting the other qualifications required by law and regulations promulgated thereunder, is also entitled to the rating of lifeboatman and to be certified as such.
[CGFR 52-43, 17 FR 9542, Oct. 18, 1952, as amended by CGD 72-92R, 38 FR 29320, Oct. 24, 1973; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51216, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11266, Mar. 16, 2009]
###### 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.

#### § 153.316 Special cargo pumproom ventilation rate.

When Table 1 refers to this section, the cargo pumproom ventilation system must change the air in the cargo pumproom 45 times per hour and discharge no less than 4 m (approx. 13.1 ft) above the deck.
# C_2011340EN.01003102.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/31

---

Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-509/11)

2011/C 340/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohammad (Mohammed) Makhlouf; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohammad (Mohammed) Makhlouf;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 30.

1

---
# C_2011347EN.01001701.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/17

---

Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-493/11 P)

2011/C 347/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: United Technologies Corp. (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, C.J. Cook, advocate, D. Gerard, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment,

| — | based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the Appellant disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to impute liability to UTC for the conduct of GTO and the Otis subsidiaries. The plea is dived into three limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law by failing to comply with the legal test provided for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability arising from 100 % ownership of subsidiaries by a parent company. Second, the General Court's interpretation of the legal test for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in addressing the specific rebuttals of the presumption of imputability raised by UTC.

By its second plea, the Appellant claims that the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning and committed an error of law by omitting to address UTC's claim of breach of equal treatment with MEC.

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.076-23 Construction and performance requirements. ( a ) Each inflatable PFD design must— ( 1 ) Meet the requirements in UL 1180 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.076-11); and
( 2 ) Meet any additional requirements that the Commandant may prescribe to approve unique or novel designs.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGD 94-110, 60 FR 32848, June 23, 1995, as amended by CGD 94-110, 61 FR 13946, Mar. 28, 1996; USCG-2011-0076, 77 FR 19942, Apr. 3, 2012; USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56500, Sept. 22, 2014]
§ 189.55-20 Number of plans required. ( a ) Three copies of each plan are normally required so that one can be returned to the submitter. If the submitter desires additional approved plans, a suitable number should be submitted to permit the required distribution.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1118, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGFR 69-116, 35 FR 6862, Apr. 30, 1970]
§ 133.10 Applicability. ( a ) Unless expressly provided otherwise in this part, this part applies to all inspected OSVs of the United States flag, including liftboats.
( b ) Offshore supply vessels which were constructed prior to October 1, 1996, must— ( 1 ) By October 1, 1997, meet the requirements of §§ 133.60(a), 133.80, and 133.90;
( 2 ) By October 1, 1997, fit retro-reflective material on all floating appliances, lifejackets, and immersion suits; and
( 3 ) Offshore supply vessels may retain the arrangement of lifeboats, lifeboat davits, winches, inflatable liferafts, liferaft launching equipment, rescue boats, lifefloats, and buoyant apparatus previously required and approved for the OSV, as long as the arrangement or appliance is maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the OCMI.
( c ) When any lifesaving appliance or arrangement on an OSV subject to this part is replaced, or when the OSV undergoes repairs, alterations, or modifications of a major character involving replacement of, or any addition to, the existing lifesaving appliances or arrangements, each new lifesaving appliance and arrangement must meet the requirements of this part, unless the OCMI determines that the OSV cannot accommodate the new appliance or arrangement.
[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.

§ 162.163-3 Performance, design, construction, testing, and marking requirements. ( a ) The portable foam applicator must produce foam suitable for extinguishing an oil fire at a minimum foam solution rate of 200 l/min (53 gpm).
( b ) The portable foam applicator must have a portable tank containing 20 liters or more of foam concentrate, along with one 20-liter spare tank. Five gallon (19 liter) foam concentrate pails are an acceptable substitute for the 20-liter tanks.
( c ) Requirements for carriage of portable foam applicators may be met by the carriage of either: ( 1 ) Portable foam applicators in accordance with this subpart, with either integral or separate eductors of fixed percentage and foam concentrate designed, constructed, tested, marked, and approved in accordance with the provisions of this section; or
( 2 ) Components and foam concentrate from deck and heli-deck foam systems approved under approval series 162.033 of this part. Suitable components include mechanical foam nozzles with pick-up tubes, and mechanical foam nozzles with separate inline eductors, along with the corresponding foam concentrate.
( d ) Each portable foam applicator to be approved under the provisions of this subpart must be of brass or bronze, except for hardware and other incidental parts which may be of rubber, plastic, or stainless steel and, in combination with a foam concentrate, must be designed, constructed, tested, and marked in accordance with the requirements of UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.163-1).
( e ) All inspections and tests required by UL 162 must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted by the Coast Guard as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter may be obtained by contacting the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) or at *http://cgmix.uscg.mil/eqlabs/*.
( f ) The independent laboratory must prepare a report on the results of the testing and must furnish the manufacturer with a copy of the test report upon completion of the testing required by UL 162.
§ 75.517 Audit documentation. ( a ) *Retention of audit documentation.* The auditor must retain audit documentation and reports for a minimum of three years after the date of issuance of the auditor's report(s) to the auditee, unless the auditor is notified in writing by the cognizant agency for audit, oversight agency for audit, cognizant agency for indirect costs, or pass-through entity to extend the retention period. When the auditor is aware that the Federal agency, pass-through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding, the auditor must contact the parties contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destruction of the audit documentation and reports.
( b ) *Access to audit documentation.* Audit documentation must be made available upon request to the cognizant or oversight agency for audit or its designee, cognizant agency for indirect cost, a Federal agency, or GAO at the completion of the audit, as part of a quality review, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities consistent with the purposes of this part. Access to audit documentation includes the right of Federal agencies to obtain copies of audit documentation, as is reasonable and necessary.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.039-5 Recognized laboratories. ( a ) A list of recognized independent laboratories that can perform approval tests of semi-portable fire extinguishers is available from the Commandant and online at *http://cgmix.uscg.mil*.
( b ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48279, July 22, 2016]
#### § 88.4 Severability.

Any provision of this part held to be invalid or unenforceable either by its terms or as applied to any entity or circumstance shall be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such provision shall be severable from this part, which shall remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law. A severed provision shall not affect the remainder of this part or the application of the provision to other persons or entities not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-39777 and 333-39779)  pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive
Plan and the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-4 No.  333-53421) and related  Prospectus,  of our report dated July 17,
1998 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule of
Arterial Vascular  Engineering,  Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 1998.


                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
September 2, 1998
§ 189.55-10 Plans required for alterations of existing vessels. ( a ) In the event of alterations involving the safety of the vessel, the applicable plans shall be submitted for approval covering the proposed work except as modified by § 189.45-1.
Exhibit 32.2



Certificate 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 Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. Sharpe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Kevin M. SharpeKevin M. Sharpe, Chief Financial Officer




November 14, 2003
§ 194.15-7 Fire protection. ( a ) If a fixed or semiportable fire-fighting system is installed, it shall meet the applicable requirements in part 193 of this subchapter. Other fire-fighting systems will be given special consideration by the Commandant.
( b ) Portable fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Table 193.50-10(a) of this subchapter.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2185 

To provide for the joint appointment of the Architect of the Capitol by 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of 

the Senate, the minority leaders of the House of Representatives and 

Senate, and the chairs and ranking minority members of the committees 

of Congress with jurisdiction over the Office of the Architect of the 

Capitol, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2009 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (for herself, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

EHLERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. WAMP, Mr. LATHAM, and Mr. DANIEL E. 

LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the joint appointment of the Architect of 

the Capitol by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority 

leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate, and 

the chairs and ranking minority members of the committees of Congress with jurisdiction over the Office of 

the Architect of the Capitol, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2185 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Architect of the Capitol 

3 Appointment Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT AND TERM OF SERVICE OF ARCHI5 TECT OF THE CAPITOL. 

6 (a) APPOINTMENT.—The Architect of the Capitol 

7 shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House 

8 of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the 

9 minority leaders of the House of Representatives and Sen10 ate, the chair and ranking minority member of the Com11 mittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 

12 the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

13 on Appropriations of the Senate, the chair and ranking 

14 minority member of the Committee on House Administra15 tion of the House of Representatives, and the chair and 

16 ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules and 

17 Administration of the Senate. 

18 (b) TERM OF SERVICE.—The Architect of the Capitol 

19 shall be appointed for a term of 10 years, and may be 

20 reappointed for additional terms. 

21 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 319 of the 

22 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C. 

23 1801) is repealed. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2185 IH

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

2 respect to appointments made on or after the date of the 

3 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### J. R. Boyd v. The State.

*No. 6667.*

*Decided May 21.*

Intimidation, etc.—Evidence.—This prosecution, was maintained upon an information which, in substance, charged that the accused, by intimidation, etc., unlawfully prevented one C. from removing a fence, the property of C., and situated on C.’s land. The proof shows that the true location of the boundary line between the adjoining lands of the accused was the subject matter of dispute between them, and that the accused refused to permit C. to remove and rebuild the division fence until the division" line between their said lands had been located by survey. The evidence preponderates to locate the dividing line as claimed by defendant, and is therefore insufficient to support the conviction. The rule which applies in theft cases is held to apply to the facts of this case, viz.: “ Where goods are taken under a claim of right, if the prisoner appears to have had any fair color of title, or if the title of the prosecutor be brought into any doubt at all, the court should direct an acquittal.” Such disputes should not be settled in the form of a criminal proceeding.

*525Appeal from the County Court of Comanche. Tried below before Hon. C. E. Williamson, County Judge.

The opinion states the case. The penalty assessed against the appellant was a fine of $25.

No brief for appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction under article 4955 of the Penal Code. The charge in the information was that defendant “ did unlawfully, and by threatening words and acts of violence and intimidation, prevent J. Conoway from moving and rebuilding a fence, the property of the said J. Conoway. and situated on the land of said J. Conoway,” etc.

From the evidence it appears that the defendant and Conoway were the owners of adjacent tracts of land and that there was a dispute as to the division line between the two tracts. Defendant refused to permit Conoway to move and reset a fence until the division line had been surveyed and established by competent surveyors, and this is in fact the gist and substance of the whole matter. Conoway's right to the line claimed by him was not only doubtful, but the preponderance of the evidence is that the line is not where he claimed it ran, but was in fact as claimed by the defendant.

If necessary to go to law the case is one which should be settled in the civil tribunals. The same rule should apply to the facts here exhibited as applies in certain theft cases, to the effect that *“*when goods are taken under a claim of right, if the prisoner appears to have had any fair color of title, *or if the title of the prosecution be brought into doubt at all,*the court will direct an acquittal, it being improper to settle such disputes in a form of process affecting men's lives and liberties or reputation.” Evans v. The State, 15 Texas Ct. App., 31; Harris v. The State, 17 Texas Ct. App., 177.

Judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for insufficiency of the evidence.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
# C_2013147EN.01001701.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN)

(Case T-336/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN - Prior national figurative and Community word marks ZANOTTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 147/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Societá Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vicini SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi and M. Giorgetti, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 634/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Societá Italiana Calzature SpA and Vicini SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Societá Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Societá Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---