alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.1868 Portable blowers in personnel access openings.

The master shall ensure that a portable blower in a personnel access opening does not reduce the area of the opening so that it does not meet § 154.340.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.520 Piping calculations. A piping system must be designed to meet the allowable stress values under § 56.07-10 of this chapter and, if the design temperature is −110 °C (−166 °F) or lower, the stress analysis must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG) and must include: ( a ) Pipe weight loads;
( b ) Acceleration loads;
( c ) Internal pressure loads;
( d ) Thermal loads; and
( e ) Loads from the hull.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
§ 147.103 State reporting. ( a ) *2014.* If a state has adopted or intends to adopt for the 2014 plan or policy year a standard or requirement described in this paragraph, the state must submit to CMS information about such standard or requirement in a form and manner specified in guidance by the Secretary no later than March 29, 2013. A state standard or requirement is described in this paragraph if it includes any of the following: ( 1 ) A ratio narrower than 3:1 in connection with establishing rates for individuals who are age 21 and older, pursuant to § 147.102(a)(1)(iii).
( 2 ) A ratio narrower than 1.5:1 in connection with establishing rates for individuals who use tobacco legally, pursuant to § 147.102(a)(1)(iv).
( 3 ) Geographic rating areas, pursuant to § 147.102(b).
( 4 ) In states that do not permit rating based on age or tobacco use, uniform family tiers and corresponding multipliers, pursuant to § 147.102(c)(2).
( 5 ) A requirement that that issuers in the small group market offer to a group premiums that are based on average enrollee amounts, pursuant to paragraph § 147.102(c)(3).
( 6 ) A uniform age rating curve, pursuant to § 147.102(e).
( b ) *Updates.* If a state adopts a standard or requirement described in paragraph (a) of this section for any plan or policy year beginning after the 2014 plan or policy year (or updates a standard or requirement that applies for the 2014 plan or policy year), the state must submit to CMS information about such standard in a form and manner specified in guidance by the Secretary.
( c ) *Applicability date.* The provisions of this section apply on March 29, 2013.
[78 FR 13437, Feb. 27, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 148

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 148.2 Responsibility and compliance.

Each master of a vessel, person in charge of a barge, owner, operator, shipper, charterer, or agent must ensure compliance with this part. These persons are also responsible for communicating requirements to every person performing any function covered by this part.
§ 131.720 Use. ( a ) An approved buoyant work vest is an item of safety apparel and may be carried aboard for wear by a crew member when working near or over the water.
( b ) The vest may not count towards the vessel's complement of lifejackets.
( c ) The vest may not be worn instead of a lifejacket during a drill.
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 September 2012 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case C-495/11 P)**

Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Duty to state reasons

1.                     *Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of
the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 29, 72, 84)*

2.                     *Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria
for assessment — Presumption of a decisive influence exerted by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Evidential
obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 101 TFEU) (see paras 26, 28, 31, 36, 42, 57)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions — Grounds — Obligation — Scope — Decision imposing fines for the infringement of the competition
rules and concerning a number or addressees — Attribution of the practices of a subsidiary to its parent company — Requirements
of explicit grounds (Arts 101 TFEU and 296, second para. TFEU) (see paras 48-49, 51)*

4.                     *Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts submitted to the General Court — Possible only where
the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see para. 52)*

5.                     *Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Deterrent effect — Taking account of the size and overall resources of the
undertaking on which the fine was imposed (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 80)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 | Total and Elf Aquitaine | v | Commission | by which that Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Duty to state reasons. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA are ordered to pay the costs. |
#### Giles H. F. Van Horne, *Respondent, v.*William Campbell and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
# C_2011282EN.01001001.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v TAP Portugal

(Case C-365/11)

2011/C 282/18

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos

Applicant:

Defendant: TAP Portugal

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

As a result of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 (1), in which it was held that Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (2) must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled where the time that they have lost due to the delayed flight is more than three hours, should the said articles be interpreted in the same way in the case of a flight that, having started on time at the place of departure, was delayed at the stop-over airport for three hours and fifty five minutes before taking off again because the airline, for operational reasons, decided to change equipment, where the equipment that replaced the previous equipment had already broken down prior to the stopover and needed a technical intervention, so that the flight arrived at the destination location with the said delay of three hours and fifty five minutes?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 4

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1)

2

---
§ 169.807 Notice of casualty. ( a ) The owner, agent, master, or person in charge of a vessel involved in a marine casualty shall give notice as soon as possible to the nearest Coast Guard Marine Safety or Marine Inspection Office, whenever the casualty involves any of the following: ( 1 ) Each accidental grounding and each intentional grounding which also meets any of the other reporting criteria or creates a hazard to navigation, the environment or the safety of the vessel;
( 2 ) Loss of main propulsion or primary steering or any associated component or control system which causes a reduction of the maneuvering capabilities of the vessel. Loss means that systems, components, sub-system or control systems do not perform the specified or required function;
( 3 ) An occurrence materially and adversely affecting the vessel's seaworthiness or fitness for service or route, including but not limited to fire, flooding, or failure or damage to fixed fire extinguishing systems, lifesaving equipment, auxiliary power generating equipment, Coast Guard approved equipment or bilge pumping systems;
( 4 ) Loss of life;
( 5 ) Injury causing a person to remain incapacitated for a period in excess of 72 hours; or
( 6 ) An occurrence resulting in damage to property in excess of $25,000.00. Damage includes the cost necessary to restore the property to the service condition which existed prior to the casualty but does not include the cost of salvage, gas freeing, drydocking, or demurrage.
( b ) The notice must include the name and official number of the vessel involved, the name of the vessel's owner or agent, nature, location and circumstances of the casualty, nature and extent of injury to persons, and the damage to property.
( c ) In addition to the notice required, the person in charge of the vessel shall report in writing or in person, as soon as possible to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection at the port in which the casualty occurred or nearest the port of first arrival. Casualties must be reported on Form CG-2692.
( d ) The owner, agent, master, or other person in charge of any vessel involved in a marine casualty shall retain for three years the voyage records of the vessel such as both rough and smooth deck and engineroom logs, navigation charts, navigation work books, compass deviation cards, gyrocompass records, record of draft, aids to mariners, radiograms sent and received, the radio log, and crew, sailing school student, instructor, and guest lists. The owner agent, master, or other officer in charge, shall make these records available to a duly authorized Coast Guard officer or employee for examination upon request.
( e ) Whenever a vessel collides or is connected with a collision with a buoy or other aid to navigation under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, the person in charge of the vessel shall report the accident to the nearest Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. A report on Form CG-2692 is not required unless any of the results listed in paragraph (b) of this section occur.
# C_2011252EN.01005701.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/57

---

Action brought on 24 June 2011 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-64/11)

2011/C 252/126

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the defendant to revoke unilaterally the offer of employment made to the applicant, despite the fact that the applicant had already accepted the offer.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of 4 March 2011 whereby the European Commission rejected the internal complaint lodged by the Applicant against the Commission decision HR B2 (2010) 662634 of 5 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of 4 March 2011 whereby the European Commission rejected the internal complaint lodged by the Applicant against the Commission decision HR B2 (2010) 662634 of 5 October 2010;

| — | pay a compensation for the damages suffered by the Applicant, including salaries and benefits foregone; |
| --- | --- |

—

pay a compensation for the damages suffered by the Applicant, including salaries and benefits foregone;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of this action.

---
# C_2013038EN.01003202.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/32

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-70/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Appraisal procedure for 2008 - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Consultation of the ad hoc group - Designation under the Staff Regulations - Designation for union purposes - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 52.

1

---
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Jose Flores

Plaintiff,

v.

Asset Acceptance, LLC

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-13905-GAD-PJK

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Now comes Plaintiff, through counsel, to notify the Court that the parties 

have reached a settlement. The parties are currently working on facilitating the 

settlement. Plaintiff expects to dismiss this case within sixty days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: s/ David M. Menditto

David M. Menditto

Attorney for Plaintiff

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA

1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410

Chicago, IL 60608

Phone: 312-380-6110

Email: davidm@fairdebt411.com

Illinois Bar No. 6216541

Case 2:14-cv-13905-GAD-PJK ECF No. 10, PageID.26 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 22, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Notice. Service of this filing will be made by the Court’s CM/ECF System upon 

the following:

Theodore W. Seitz

Dykema Gossett, PLLC

201 Townsend Street, Suite 900

Lansing, MI 48933

Counsel for:

Asset Acceptance, LLC

 

 s/ David M. Menditto

Case 2:14-cv-13905-GAD-PJK ECF No. 10, PageID.27 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3541

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Diana Kay Erickson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 27, 2012

Filed: May 31, 2012

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Under the terms of a written plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver,

Diana Erickson pleaded guilty to mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and

filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The district court

1

imposed a sentence of 33 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and

ordered her to pay $305,249.72 in restitution. Defense counsel has moved to

withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
We conclude that the appeal waiver should be enforced as to all issues in this

appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where appeal falls within

scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and

voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v.

Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal

waiver in Anders case). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject

to counsel informing Ms. Erickson about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing

a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
#### Walker *v.*The State.

Submitted October 17,

Decided November 8, 1906.

Accusation, of selling liquor. Before Judge Henderson. City court of Vienna. August 23, 1906.

*Watts Powell,*fox plaintiff in error.

*W. V. Harvard, solicitor,*and *H. F. Strozier,*contra.

Cobb, P. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative and impeaching in its character, and the discretion of the judge exercised in refúsing to grant a new trial upon this ground will not be controlled.

2. The other rulings complained of were not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*John Cashman *v.*Thomas P. Hedden and others, *Referees, etc*.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### § 169.401 Applicability.

Each vessel must meet the applicable requirements in Subchapter S, parts 170-174, of this chapter.
Exhibit 32.2

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 First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael C. Frederick, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, 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 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | BY: |  | /s/ Michael C. Frederick                                    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Michael C. Frederick                                        
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Presidential Documents

19779 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 75 

Thursday, April 19, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8126 of April 17, 2007 

Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy at Virginia Tech 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Our Nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. 

We hold the victims in our hearts. We lift them up in our prayers, and 

we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering. 

As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of violence 

perpetrated on Monday, April 16, 2007, by the authority vested in me 

as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the 

United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States 

shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings 

and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval 

vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout 

the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, Sunday, 

April 22, 2007. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for 

the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular 

offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval 

vessels and stations. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth 

day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtyfirst. 

[FR Doc. 07–1984 

Filed 4–18–07; 8:53 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES4GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.615 Design temperature below 0 °C (32 °F) and down to −55 °C (−67 °F).

Plates, forgings, forged or rolled or forged bars and shapes for cargo tanks and secondary barriers for a design temperature below 0 °C (32 °F) and down to −55 °C (−67 °F) must meet § 54.25-10 of this chapter.