alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 178.220 Stability booklet.

When the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center determines, in accordance with § 178.210(b), that a vessel must have a stability booklet, the owner or operator must prepare the booklet in accordance with subchapter S of this chapter, and submit it to the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
**Exhibit ITEM****11**

StatementReference Computation of Per Share Earnings

Primary earnings pershare amounts were computed on the basis of the weighted average number ofshares of common stock during the year. The weighted average number of shares used for this computation was1,658,675, 1,614,196, 1,576,589, 1,528,268 and 1,483,493, in 2006, 2005, 2004,2003, and 2002, respectively.

Fully diluted earnings per share amountswere computed on the basis of the weighted average number of shares of commonstock and common stock equivalents outstanding during the year.  Common stock equivalents include employeestock options.  The weighted averagenumber of shares used for this computation was 1,831,892, 1,923,532, 1,919,512,1,796,859 and 1,744,082, in 2006, 2005,2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

 

----
#### § 184.200 General.

Cooking and heating equipment must be suitable for marine use. Equipment designed and installed in accordance with American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) A-3, “Galley Stoves,” and A-7, “Boat Heating Systems,” or with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 302, “Pleasure and Commercial Motor Craft,” complies with this requirement, except as restricted by § 184.202 of this part.
# C_2011269EN.01003404.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-343/11)

2011/C 269/69

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

| 2. | If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?

---
#### Alonzo Clark, *Appellant, v.*The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, *Respondent.*C. William Loring, *Appellant, v.*The Same. Lucy A. Clark, *Appellant, v.*The Same. Sarah A. Whitman, *Appellant, v.*The Same.

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

Davis, P. J.
1

Memo 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472 

From: Joseph McDonald 

CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010

Re: March 2009 Pt and Rh commodity prices 

The following document contains March 2009 commodity prices for platinum and rhodium as reported 

at the following Internet URL: 

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/prices/price_charts.html 
Top

Data Tables for Platinum

US$ per troy oz 08:00 London time From: 01 Mar 2009

To: 31 Mar 2009

Period Average: $1086.31

Mar 2009 

2 1094 

3 1054 

4 1045 

5 1057 

6 1075 

9 1073 

10 1046 

11 1055 

12 1050 

13 1055 

16 1069 

17 1058 

18 1056 

19 1059 

20 1120 

23 1114 

24 1130 

25 1125 

26 1143 

27 1153 

30 1135 

31 1133 

 

Platinum today: Data Table Page 1 of 1

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/cgi-bin/graphing/jmbespoke.pl?graphtype=bespoke&ac... 9/11/2009
Top

Data Tables for Rhodium

US$ per troy oz 08:00 London time From: 01 Mar 2009

To: 31 Mar 2009

Period Average: $1170.45

Mar 2009 

2 1200 

3 1200 

4 1200 

5 1200 

6 1200 

9 1200 

10 1200 

11 1175 

12 1175 

13 1175 

16 1175 

17 1175 

18 1150 

19 1125 

20 1125 

23 1125 

24 1125 

25 1150 

26 1150 

27 1175 

30 1175 

31 1175 

 

Platinum today: Data Table Page 1 of 1

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/cgi-bin/graphing/jmbespoke.pl?graphtype=bespoke&ac... 9/11/2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY LEE FARR, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS WINN,

Respondent.

/

Case Number: 2:15-CV-10695

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner Tommy Lee Farr, Jr., a Michigan state prisoner, has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court determines that this is a successive habeas corpus petition and,

therefore, orders it transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 16311

 and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Petitioner challenges his convictions for four counts of first-degree criminal sexual

conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(f), rendered in Macomb County Circuit

Court. In 2009, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court challenging the

1 28 U.S.C. § 1631 provides, in relevant part:

Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court

finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is

in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any

other such court in which the action or appeal could have

been brought at the time it was filed or noticed . . .

2:15-cv-10695-MOB-EAS Doc # 3 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 21
same convictions challenged in this petition. The earlier-filed petition was denied with

prejudice. See 3/5/12 Opinion and Order, Farr, Jr., v. Barry Davis, No. 2:09-cv-14831,

Doc. 12.

Before a prisoner may file a habeas petition challenging a conviction already

challenged in a prior habeas petition, the prisoner must “move in the appropriate court of

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner’s prior habeas petition was denied on the merits. Petitioner

has not obtained from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit authorization to file a

successive petition in this court. When a second or successive petition for habeas corpus

relief is filed in the district court without prior authorization, the district court must

transfer the petition to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In re Sims,

111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the District Court Clerk to transfer this case to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 11, 2015 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

2

2:15-cv-10695-MOB-EAS Doc # 3 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 22
**Exhibit11**

 

Statement ReferenceComputation of Per Share Earnings

 

Primary earnings (loss) per share amounts werecomputed on the basis of the weighted average number of shares of common stockduring the year.  The weighted averagenumber of shares used for this computation was 1,483,493 for 2002, 1,469,489for 2001 and 1,479,520 for 2000, and 1,422,287 for 1999, and 1,409,223 for1998.

 

Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share amounts werecomputed on the basis of the weighted average number of shares of common stockand common stock equivalents outstanding during the year.  Common stock equivalents include employeestock options.  The weighted averagenumber of shares used for this computation was 1,744,082, 1,701,827, 1,705,258,1,702,585 and 1,682,401, in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectively.

 

----
II 

Calendar No. 714 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2062 

[Report No. 111–375] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

DECEMBER 17, 2010 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide for 

penalties and enforcement for intentionally taking protected avian species, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Migratory Bird Treaty 

5 Act Penalty and Enforcement Act of 2009’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2062 RS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT. 

2 Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 707) is amended by redesignating subsection (d) 

4 as subsection (e), and by inserting after subsection (c) the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(d)(1) Except in the case of hunting and other activ7 ity allowed under section 3, whoever in violation of this 

8 Act kills or wounds a migratory bird in an aggravated 

9 manner shall, in lieu of any penalty for such violation— 

10 ‘‘(A) for the first violation, be fined under title 

11 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more 

12 than one year, or both; and 

13 ‘‘(B) for the second and any subsequent viola14 tion, be fined under title 18 of the United States 

15 Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. 

16 ‘‘(2) The authority under section 3(k) of the Fish and 

17 Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 742l(k)) ap18 plies with respect to a violation described in paragraph 

19 (1). 

20 ‘‘(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term ‘ag21 gravated manner’ means deliberately and in a manner 

22 that— 

23 ‘‘(A) demonstrates indifference to the pain and 

24 suffering of the bird; or 

25 ‘‘(B) involves actions that would shock a rea26 sonable person.’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 714 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2062 

[Report No. 111–375] 

AN ACT 

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to proother purposes. tionally taking protected avian species, and for vide for penalties and enforcement for intenDECEMBER 17, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of Entercom Communications Corp. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)   theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:August 2, 2010

 

 
| By:    | /s/  Stephen F. Fisher                                             |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Stephen  F. Fisher                                                 |   |
| Title: | Executive  Vice President - Operations and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | (principal  financial officer)                                     |   |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Entercom Communications Corp. and will be retained byEntercom Communications Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
# C_2012006EN.01002602.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/26

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-109/11)

2012/C 6/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009; more specifically, the part of the report issued by EUROSTAT for that period; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009; more specifically, the part of the report issued by EUROSTAT for that period;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
§ 170.165 International Code on Intact Stability. ( a ) Each vessel issued one or more of the certificates listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, must comply with the Introduction and Part A of the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), unless permitted otherwise (incorporated by reference, see § 170.015). ( 1 ) International Load Line Certificate.
( 2 ) SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate.
( 3 ) SOLAS Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate.
( 4 ) High-speed Craft Safety Certificate.
( b ) A vessel not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is permitted to comply with the applicable criteria contained in the 2008 IS Code as an alternative to the requirements of §§ 170.170 and 170.173 of this part.
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78084, Dec. 14, 2010]
# C_2013189EN.01002301.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/23

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v ECDC

(Case T-577/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision to the ECDC of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 189/47

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Garipis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: R. Trott, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and E. Bourtzalas)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the ECDC’s decision of 25 August 2011 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure PROC/2001/041 concerning the provision of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens (OJ 2011/S 109-179084).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
#### Henry Bostwick, *Receiver, etc.,*Respondent, *v.*Beverly Haight, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

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

§ 160.038-1 Applicable specifications. ( a ) There are no other specifications applicable to this subpart.
( b ) [Reserved]
# C_2013313EN.01002102.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-111/11) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Studies received by the Commission concerning the transposition of directives on the environment - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Specific and individual assessment - Compatibility with the Aarhus Convention - Overriding public interest - Consequences of exceeding the period for the adoption of an express decision - Extent of the obligation actively to disseminate environmental information)

2013/C 313/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver and C. Zadra, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, initially, for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents on the conformity of the Member States’ legislation with European Union environmental law and then for annulment of the Commission’s subsequent express decision of 30 May 2011 refusing in part access to some of those documents.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ClientEarth and the European Commission each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ClientEarth and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
M E M O R A N D U M

To: File

From: Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office

Date: February 7, 2011

Concerning: EPA Proposed Rule to Partially Approve and Partially Disapprove South Coast and San

Joaquin Valley Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plans –Notes from

Teleconference on January 26, 2011

_____________________________

On Wednesday, January 26, 2011, EPA Region 9 staff and managers, as well as staff and managers from

the Office of Ari Quality Planning and Standards(OAQPS), attended a conference call with the California

Air Resources Board (CARB). The purpose of the call was to discuss CARB’s views on issues raised in

EPA’s proposal, concerning PM 2.5 modeling documentation and VOC as a PM2.5 plan precursor for the

San Joaquin Valley. CARB staff stated their intention to follow through with written comments to EPA

on the proposal. CARB staff outlined their reasoning on why VOC should not be considered a PM 2.5 plan

precursor: 1) the PM 2.5 implementation rule presumes VOC is not a plan precursor unless there is a

technical demonstration showing that it should be; 2) there can be PM 2.5 dis

‐ benefits from VOC control

at some times and places; and 3) benefits from VOC control seen in some past modeling exercises

occurred at very high PM 2.5 concentrations, which have not been observed in the past few years despite

substantial stagnation episodes.

There was no meeting agenda associated with this conference call.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


    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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of ComBanc, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief
Executive Officer 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 to
the best of my knowledge:

                         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                             section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
                             Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Paul G. Wreede
------------------
Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief Executive Officer

May 1, 2003



























                                       19
Exhibit 32.1   Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Optimized Transportation Management, Inc.  (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  DATE: May 20, 2010  BY:/s/ Kevin P. Brennan Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Optimized Transportation Management, Inc.  and will be retained by Optimized Transportation Management, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
P. 1



# OAR Box 1158 Prepped by RyanDugan



### Document

Number: 

# 52 ) l-C-2 8
Docket Number: 

# A-88-0 2

Printed 4/28/2008 2:34:13 PM

Sheet 52 of 349

### A-88-0 2 X-C
- 2. S P. 2

^ « ° ST *r.

\ p*oA UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e o fAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1



### 8 NO V «

Mr . Ro nGuidebec k Presiden t Genera l Plating , Incorporate d 654 7 St . Pau l Avenu e Detroit , Michiga n4820 7 Dea r Mr . Guidebeck : 

### - . „ --A

### r
W «• 

# W£\ \ \ # ^

Th e repor t o nou r visi t t o th e Genera l Plating , Incorporated , plan t 1 nDetroit , Michigan , o nMarc h15 , 1985 , ha s bee nrewritte na s requeste d 1 nyou r Octobe r 29 , 1985 , transmitta l an d1 s considere da fina l report . Non e o f th e Informatio ncontaine d1 nth e tri prepor t 1 s considere d confidentia l b

y th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y becaus e n o clai m fo r confidentia l treatmen t wa s mad e 1 nyou r transmittal . I f yo uhav e an

y question s o r additiona l comments , pleas e contac t me a t (919 ) 541-560 1 b

y Novembe r 18 , 1985 . Sincerely ,

Al Vervaer t Industria l Studie s Branc h Emissio nStandard s an

d ^Engineering Divisio n Enclosur e

/

-P. 3

Docke t No . A-88-0 2 Subcategor y

I- C Th e enclosur e t o thi s documen t ma y b e foundi

n docke t ite

m I-B - 7



### 2.