alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hiram Ham, *Appellant, v.*Henry Astor, *Respondent*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Guriam.*
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Artificial Life, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eberhard Schoeneburg,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

                            /s/ Eberhard Schoeneburg

                              Eberhard Schoeneburg
                           Chief Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer

August 14, 2006
§ 170.200 Estimated lightweight vertical center of gravity. ( a ) Each tank vessel that does not carry a material listed in either Table 1 of part 153 or Table 4 of part 154 of this chapter may comply with this section in lieu of § 170.175 if it— ( 1 ) Is 150 gross tons or greater;
( 2 ) Is of ordinary proportions and form;
( 3 ) Has a flush weather deck, one or more longitudinal bulkheads, and no independent tanks; and
( 4 ) Is designed not to carry cargo above the freeboard deck.
( b ) When doing the calculations required by §§ 170.170 and 172.065, the vertical center of gravity of a tank vessel in the lightweight condition must be assumed to be equal to the following percentage of the molded depth of the vessel measured from the keel amidship: ( 1 ) For a tank ship—70%.
( 2 ) For a tank barge—60%.
( c ) As used in this section, *molded depth* has the same meaning that is provided for the term in § 42.13-15(e) of this chapter.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 944, Jan. 10, 1996]
2:14-cv-14279-AC-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 230
2:14-cv-14279-AC-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 231
2:14-cv-14279-AC-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 232
2:14-cv-14279-AC-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 233
2:14-cv-14279-AC-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 234
# C_2013304EN.01001501.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11) (1)

1

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Inspection powers of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 304/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany); DB Mobility Logistics AG (Berlin); DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); DB Netz AG (Frankfurt-am-Main); DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany); DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (Mainz); Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) (Bodenheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, O. Mross and J. Brückner, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially, in Cases T-289/11 and T-290/11, by: M. Muñoz Pérez, then, in Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, by: S. Centeno Huerta, abogados del Estado); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents); and EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X.A. Lewis, M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011)1774 of 14 March 2011, C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011 ordering Deutsche Bahn AG and all its subsidiaries, to submit to inspections under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
Martin, Michael (OST) i^)c)ck:e.4 D o ^ ~ OST - QOO:i. ^ U ^7 U 

From: Salina Manager [slnnngr@mail.flygreatlakes.com] ; I i. : v,!;.;iL;, 

Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:40 PM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: RE:Great Lakes In Salina 

Dear Sir, 

My name is Sean Francis I am the Salina station Manager for Great Lakes Airlines in Salina. I was looking at the bids 

for EAS for the next 2 years and my concern is Security. With Sea Port we take all pax to an FBO and they will land at an 

FBO in Kansas City this is nice for passengers but they still need to check in again in Kansas City which isn't a problem 

for most pax except they now need to check in again and go through security. 

Great Lakes has some problems with on time percentages, but with the new bid Great Lakes is thinking of having 3 

flights a day to Denver and making Salina the starting point so our on-time would improve greatly. By pulling out of 

Kansas City this would free up more planes and make flying out of Salina more affordable. Denver is a bigger hub and 

more accessible for pax traveling out of Salina and make it easier for business people to make plans in Denver. Many of 

our passengers who do fly out of Salina go to Kansas City and on to Denver on United or Frontier. When we first started 

operation in Salina with Great Lakes we had a 8:00am flight to Denver and we were putting on 8-10 passengers a flight. 

Than Great Lakes changed that flight to 1:00pm and it really hurt our numbers. 

With all the security issues in America I would rather have TSA checking all bags and passengers as they fly knowing 

that once in the air I can feel more secure about our passengers flying on our airline. Even with the problems Great lakes 

has had keep in mind they took over most of Air Midwest citys when the pulled out of here and it can be ovenwhelming for 

any airline to jump in to so many citys at once I still have faith in our Airline and hope they are awarded the bid for 2 more 

years. 

Your truly 

Sean Francis/SLN
#### JOHN KLOEN, PLAINTIFF, v. MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided April 11, 1929.

Before Gttmmeee, Chief Justice, and Justice Paekee.

Por the plaintiff, *Kent & Kent.*

Por the defendant, *Edward A. MarTcley.*

Pee Cuktam.

The plaintiff was on his way to work as a stevedore, and to reach a lighter on the outer side of one of the defendant’s ships, entered the ship by a gangplank leading into a cross passageway some fourteen inches below the end of the gangplank. The plaintiff was aware of this high step, but in stepping down he sprained his ankle, and the jury awarded him $1,000 for the injury thus sustained. His claim was that the surface of the deck was defective in that there was a depression some three inches deep, and that some oil made a slippery surface at that point.

We conclude that the verdict should be set aside both as excessive and as against the weight of evidence. The testimony of conditions that would give rise to liability is most unsatisfactory, and the attempted explanation is that fellow-workmen of the plaintiff who would normally testify in his favor were intimidated. We have considered all the aspects of the case and conclude that the verdict cannot reasonably be supported.

The rule will be made absolute.
# C_2012080EN.01001802.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2)

(Case T-64/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Run2 - Earlier Community word and figurative marks RUN2DAY - Earlier BENELUX figurative mark RUN2DATE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 80/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Run2Day Franchise BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Koenraad, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Run2Day Franchise BV and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH to pay, apart from their own costs, those incurred by Run2Day Franchise BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH to pay, apart from their own costs, those incurred by Run2Day Franchise BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.019-9 Procedure for acceptance of revisions of design, process, or materials. ( a ) The manufacturer shall not change the design, material, manufacturing process, or construction of a non-standard component unless it has been previously approved by the Commandant, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The manufacturer or the recognized laboratory that performs the acceptance testing required by the applicable subpart of this part or part 160 of this chapter shall submit requests for acceptance of revisions in design, material, manufacturing process, or construction of a non-standard component in writing and describe the revision in detail similar to the original request for acceptance.
§ 169.225 Annual inspection. ( a ) Your vessel must undergo an annual inspection within 3 months before or after each anniversary date, except as specified in § 169.226.
( b ) You must contact the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection to schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No written application is required.
( c ) The scope of the annual inspection is the same as the inspection for certification as specified in § 169.222 but in less detail unless the cognizant marine inspector finds deficiencies or determines that a major change has occurred since the last inspection. If deficiencies are found or a major change to the vessel has occurred, the marine inspector will conduct an inspection more detailed in scope to ensure that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your vessel passes the annual inspection, the marine inspector will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( d ) If the annual inspection reveals deficiencies in your vessel's maintenance, you must make any or all repairs or improvements within the time period specified by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6507, Feb. 9, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE IGNATIUS GREENFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-123) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Ignatius Greenfield, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth E. Melson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Tyrone Ignatius Greenfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his conviction, which was construed as an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any di spositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Greenfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

§ 160.062-5 Markings. ( a ) Hydraulic releases manufactured prior to the granting of a certificate of approval to the manufacturer may be permitted in service only to July 1, 1969. However, such hydraulic releases meeting the type and design requirements covered by a current certificate of approval may be repaired and/or reconditioned as provided in § 160.062-4(f) and be accepted as approved equipment when it bears the following markings: ( 1 ) *Body marking.* The name of the manufacturer and the model designation are plainly visible.
( 2 ) *Inspection tag markings.* Each hydraulic release repaired or reconditioned shall be provided with a 2′′ by 31 ⁄ 2′′ stainless steel tag of a minimum thickness of 0.032 inches. This tag shall be permanently attached to a hydraulic release with a single stainless steel link made of wire 3 ⁄ 16′′ in diameter. This link shall provide nonrigid attachment of the tag to the hydraulic release. The top of the inspection tag shall be stamped in block characters not less than 1 ⁄ 16′′ in height with the manufacturer's name, Coast Guard approval number, the limits of buoyant capacity in pounds, the Marine Inspection Office identification letters, and the letters “USCG.” The remaining space on the tag will be used for the stamping of periodic servicing test dates and the marine inspector's initials as described in § 160.062-4(f).
( b ) Hydraulic release manufactured under a certificate of approval issued under this subpart shall be provided with 2 sets of markings as follows: ( 1 ) *Body marking.* The metal body of a hydraulic release shall be stamped in block characters not less than 1 ⁄ 8′′ in height on a plainly visible portion with the name of the manufacturer, the model designation, the limits of buoyant capacity in pounds, the method of manual release, the notation “DO NOT PAINT”, Coast Guard approval number, the Marine Inspection Office identification letters, and the letters “USCG”.
( 2 ) *Inspection tag markings.* Each hydraulic release shall be provided at its time of manufacture with a 2′′ by 31 ⁄ 2′′ stainless steel tag of a minimum thickness of 0.032 inch. This tag shall be permanently attached to a hydraulic release with a single stainless steel link made of wire 3 ⁄ 16′′ in diameter. This link shall provide nonrigid attachment of the tag to the hydraulic release. The top of the inspection tag shall be stamped in block characters not less than 1 ⁄ 8′′ in height with the original lot number of the hydraulic release, its date of manufacture, and its release depth range in feet. The remaining space on the tag will be used for the stamping of periodic servicing test dates and the Marine Inspection Office identification letters as described in § 160.062-4(f).
[CGFR 68-32, 33 FR 5721, Apr. 12, 1968, as amended by CGD 75-186, 41 FR 10437, Mar. 11, 1976]
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.

§ 154.448 Calculations. The following calculations for an independent tank type B must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG): ( a ) Plastic deformation, fatigue life, buckling, and crack propagation resulting from static and dynamic loads on the tank and its support.
( b ) A three-dimensional analysis of the stress exerted by the hull on the tank, its support, and its keys.
( c ) The response of the tank and its support to the vessel's motion and acceleration in irregular waves or calculations from a similar vessel.
( d ) A tank buckling analysis considering the maximum construction tolerance.
( e ) A finite element analysis using the loads determined under § 154.406.
( f ) A fracture mechanics analysis using the loads determined under § 154.406.
( g ) The cumulative effects of the fatigue load from the following formula:
where: ni = the number of stress cycles at each stress level during the life of the vessel; Ni = the number of cycles to failure for corresponding stress levels from the Wohler (S-N) curve; Nj = the number of cycles to failure from the fatigue load by loading and unloading the tank; and Cw = 0.5 or less. A Cw of greater than 0.5 but not exceeding 1.0 may be specially approved by the Commandant (G-MTH).
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________________

)

RALPH NADER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 10-989 (RCL)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion filed this date, it is 

hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion [16] for Summary Judgment is DENIED and 

defendant’s Motion [18] for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that judgment is entered for defendant. All claims are hereby dismissed. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on November 9, 2011.

Case 1:10-cv-00989-RCL Document 23 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 1
J. 

tf0 

7, 

of some of the actuarial assessments, the record supports the district 

court's implicit conclusion that the evaluator's opinion was based on 

"currently accepted standards of assessment." NRS 176A.110(1)(a); see 

Blackburn, 129 Nev. at , 294 P.3d at 426-27. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion, see id. at , 294 P.3d 

at 427, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

z_t.-ci9-1 

Douglas Saitta 

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
#### Connolly v. Hamill.

*Contract*— *construction of—made by letters—Delivery.*

Plaintiff, who resided in Ireland, wrote to his agent in New York this : " I offer to ship for account of Mr. Hamill (defendant) 500 tons of good scraps at *£5*10s. * * * to New York, the iron to be shipped in the first suitable vessel.” To this defendant replied by letter, informing plaintiff that his agent “ has this day offered to me the iron described in your letter to him. I have offered to take the iron at $56 per ton delivered in this city.” Plaintiff replied by letter: “ I am favored with your letter accepting my offer to ship you 500 tons scrap iron as described in my letter of 21st July (the one to the agent), at $56 per ton, which I hereby confirm.” Defendant made no answer to this letter. Plaintiff shipped the iron, and forwarded the bill of lading to the defendant, who acknowledged the receipt of the same. *Held,*that the contract was one to ship on account of defendant and not to deliver in New York, and the iron was at the risk of the defendant, and the title in him after the same was properly shipped.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.

The action was brought by Charles Connolly against Henry F. Hamill, to recover for the deficiency on a resale of iron sold by plaintiff to defendant.

*John F. Malcolm*and *John E. Burrill,*for appellant.

*Scudder & Carter,*for respondent.

Westbrook, J.

The only material points passed upon in the opinion are stated-sufficiently in the head-note.

*Judgment affirmed.*