alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCWC

- 18

- 0000 487

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

WALTER L. WAGNER,

Petitioner /Plaintiff

- Appell ant

,

vs.

WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC.

, Respondent /Defendant

- Appell ee

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 18

- 0000 487 ; CASE NO. 3CC041000232 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins

, and Devens

, JJ. , and

Circuit Judge Watanabe, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused,

and Circuit Judge Drewyer, in place of Ginoza, J., recused )

Petitioner/ Plaintiff

- Appellant Walter L. Wagner ’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on March 27 , 2024 , is

rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i

, April 29 , 2024

.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

/s/ Kathleen N.A. Watanabe

/s/ Michelle L. Drewyer Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000487

29-APR-2024

03:01 PM

Dkt. 24 ODAC
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.220 Survival craft and rescue boat embarkation arrangements. ( a ) Survival craft embarkation arrangements must be designed for— ( 1 ) Each lifeboat to be boarded and launched either directly from the stowed position or from an embarkation deck, but not both; and
( 2 ) Davit-launched liferafts to be boarded and launched from a position immediately adjacent to the stowed positions or from a position where, as described under § 199.130(c)(4), the liferaft is transferred before launching.
( b ) Each rescue boat must be able to be boarded and launched directly from the stowed position with the number of persons assigned to crew the rescue boat on board. Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if the rescue boat is also a lifeboat and the other lifeboats are boarded and launched from an embarkation deck, the arrangements must be such that the rescue boat can also be boarded and launched from the embarkation deck.
[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25313, May 20, 1996, as amended by USCG-1999-6216, 64 FR 53229, Oct. 1, 1999]
# C_2011319EN.01001901.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council

(Case T-316/11) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 319/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mathieu Kadio Morokro (Cocody, Ivory Coast) (represented by: S. Le Damany, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern Mr Mathieu Kadio Morokro. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern Mr Mathieu Kadio Morokro.

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/221 as far as concerns Mr Kadio Morokro until the annulment of Regulation No 330/2011 takes effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/221 as far as concerns Mr Kadio Morokro until the annulment of Regulation No 330/2011 takes effect.

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Kadio Morokro. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Kadio Morokro.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6020

DANIEL E. FELIX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Virginia; D. LAWSON, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; D. WILLIAMS,

Corrections Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-94-1638-AM)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel E. Felix, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Felix

v. Angelone, No. CA-94-1638-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 1996). We deny

Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015279EN.01002802.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-44/11) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Aid for the production of skimmed-milk powder - Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrative authorities or bodies of the Member States - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of ne bis in idem - Reasonable period))

(2015/C 279/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by L. Ventrella and G. Fiengo, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 288, p. 24), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 69th District Court of Moore County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on July 30,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Fernando Hernandez, Jr. a.k.a. Fernando Junior Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00417-CR Trial Court Number: 5056

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 30, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the 69th District

Court of Moore County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with this Court’s

opinion entered this day.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 30, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
LEAVE TO SIT FOR BAR EXAMINATION 

Dustin L. Kuipers has petitioned the Court for permission to sit for the February 

2022 Montana Bar Exam. Rule III.I, Rules of Admission to the Bar of Montana, requires 

that an applicant who has been unsuccessful in three or more attempts to take the Bar Exam 

must obtain permission frorn the Court to retake the exam, and must "include a study plan 

and an explanation of the steps taken and to be taken by the applicant to improve the 

likelihood of the applicant's successful completion of the examination." 

The petition sets forth a plan for Kuipers to prepare for the exam, including 

registration in a national preparatory program. The State Bar reports that Kuipers has 

previously submitted the necessary documentation to sit for the February 2022 exam 

administration. Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Dustin L. Kuipers for leave to sit 

for the February 2022 adrninistration of the Montana Bar Examination is GRANTED. 

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy hereof to Dustin L. Kuipers and to the Bar 

Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana. 

DATED this day of February, 2022. 

Chief J 
Justices 

2
2:14-mc-50979-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/23/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1
2:14-mc-50979-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/23/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1948 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from 

flexible spending accounts for certain dental products. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2009 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. PAUL, Mr. EHLERS, 

Mr. HELLER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. SIMPSON, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. BURGESS, and Mr. SOUDER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from flexible spending accounts for certain 

dental products. 

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 ‘‘Dental Health Pro5 motion Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT FROM FLEXIBLE SPENDING AC7 COUNTS FOR CERTAIN DENTAL PRODUCTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 106 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions by employer 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1948 IH

1 to accident and health plans) is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(f) DENTAL CARE PRODUCTS UNDER FLEXIBLE

4 SPENDING ARRANGEMENT.—An arrangement shall not 

5 fail to be treated as a health flexible spending arrange6 ment under this section or section 105 merely because 

7 such arrangement provides reimbursement for products 

8 used to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent the 

9 onset of tooth decay (caries), periodontal diseases, and 

10 conditions ailing the teeth, gums, and mouth, or affecting 

11 the proper function thereof, for which reimbursement 

12 without regard to this subsection would not otherwise be 

13 allowable.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
§ 169.605 General. ( a ) Generators, starting motors, and other spark producing devices must be mounted as high above the bilges as practicable.
( b ) Gages to indicate engine cooling water temperature, exhaust cooling water temperature and engine lubricating oil pressure must be provided and located in plain view.
( c ) All electrical components of the engine must be protected in accordance with § 183.410 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations to prevent ignition of flammable vapors.
§ 181.115 Applicability; preemptive effect. ( a ) Except as otherwise required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, an existing vessel must comply with the fire protection equipment regulations applicable to the vessel on March 10, 1996, or, as an alternative, the vessel may comply with the regulations in this part.
( b ) An existing vessel with a hull, or a machinery space boundary bulkhead or deck, composed of wood or fiber reinforced plastic, or sheathed on the interior in fiber reinforced plastic, must comply with the requirements of § 181.400 of this part on or before March 11, 1999.
( c ) New installations of fire protection equipment on an existing vessel, which are completed to the satisfaction of the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) on or after March 11, 1996, must comply with the regulations of this part. Replacement of existing equipment installed on the vessel prior to March 11, 1996, need not comply with the regulations in this part.
( d ) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the same field.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 982, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33891, June 7, 2011]
§ 171.085 Collision bulkhead. ( a ) Paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section apply to each vessel of 100 gross tons or more and paragraphs (h) through (j) of this section apply to each vessel that is less than 100 gross tons.
( b ) The portion of the collision bulkhead that is below the bulkhead deck must be watertight.
( c ) Each portion of the collision bulkhead must be at least— ( 1 ) 5 percent of the LBP from the forward perpendicular in a motor vessel; and
( 2 ) 5 feet (1.52 meters) from the forward perpendicular in a steam vessel.
( d ) The collision bulkhead must be no more than 10 feet (3 meters) plus 5 percent of the LBP from the forward perpendicular.
( e ) The collision bulkhead must extend to the deck above the bulkhead deck if the vessel— ( 1 ) Is in ocean service; and
( 2 ) Has a superstructure that extends from a point forward of the collision bulkhead to a point at least 15 percent of the LBP aft of the collision bulkhead.
( f ) The collision bulkhead required by paragraph (e) of this section must have the following characteristics: ( 1 ) The portion of the collision bulkhead above the bulkhead deck must be weathertight.
( 2 ) If the portion of the collision bulkhead above the bulkhead deck is not located directly above the collision bulkhead below the bulkhead deck, then the bulkhead deck between must be weathertight.
( g ) Each opening in the collision bulkhead must— ( 1 ) Be located above the bulkhead deck; and
( 2 ) Have a watertight closure.
( h ) Each collision bulkhead— ( 1 ) Must extend to the deck above the bulkhead deck if in ocean service as defined in § 170.050(f) of this chapter or to the bulkhead deck if in service on other waters;
( 2 ) May not have watertight doors in it; and
( 3 ) May have penetrations and openings that— ( i ) Are located as high and as far inboard as practicable; and
( ii ) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, have means to make them watertight.
( i ) Each vessel that is not required to comply with a one or two compartment standard of flooding may have an opening that cannot be made watertight in the collision bulkhead below the bulkhead deck if— ( 1 ) The lowest edge of the opening is not more than 12 inches (30.5 centimeters) below the bulkhead deck; and
( 2 ) There are at least 36 inches (92 centimeters) of intact collision bulkhead below the lower edge of the opening.
( j ) Each portion of the collision bulkhead must be— ( 1 ) At least 5 percent of the LBP from the forward perpendicular; and
( 2 ) No more than 15 percent of the LBP from the forward perpendicular if the space forward of the collision bulkhead is not subject to damage stability requirements and at any location aft of the location described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section if the space forward of the collision bulkhead is subject to damage stability requirements.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51017, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 945, Jan. 10, 1996]
Essex County Circuit Court.

#### NORMAN SLOAN AND MARTIN ROSE, PLAINTIFFS, v. GEORGE E. POOR AND COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

Eor the plaintiffs, *E. A. &*IP. *A. Schilling.*

Eor the defendants, *Fleming & Handford.*

Dungan, J.

The facts as they appeared in the argument are that George E. Poor, one of the defendants, was a tenant of Norman Sloan, one of the plaintiffs. Sloan through Martin Eose, his bailiff, the other plaintiff distrained certain furniture of Poor for $210 being for three months arrears of rent due on April 1st, 1927. Poor thereupon instituted an action in replevin and gave a bond to the sheriff with Columbia Casualty Company as surety in the sum of $2,000 conditioned for the return of the furniture, should a return thereof be awarded. Poor was nonsuited and the bond assigned by the sheriff to the plaintiffs and this action brought by the plaintiffs to recover upon the replevin bond. The defendant George E. *198Poor was not found by the sheriff and summons and complaint were served only upon the Columbia Casualty Company. An affidavit of merits being required and no such affidavit of merits being filed a rule for final judgment was filed in the Essex County Circuit Court on October 25th, 1928, for the-amount of-the bond, $2,000 and costs. On this judgment a writ of execution was issued. Motion is now made on behalf of the Columbia Casualty Company to stay said execution and to vacate the judgment final and to enter an interlocutory judgment, and that a jury from the general panel be drawn to assess the damages of the plaintiffs.

It will be observed from the above statement of facts that the original debt due from Poor to Sloan was $210, while it is insisted on behalf of the plaintiff Sloan that he is entitled to enforce against the defendant Columbia Casualty Company his judgment for $2,000; a situation so manifestly unjust that it can hardly be expected that the court will permit him to collect $2,000 for a debt of $210.

The situation in this case is different from one in which the plaintiff, in the event of a judgment in his favor, would have been entitled to the permanent possession of the goods. The right of possession of the plaintiff here would, at best, have been only a qualified one. His right to their possession was only for the purpose of realizing from them the amount of the debt due to him for rent. If, upon service of the writ requiring their return, they had been delivered to him, he could not have retained them but would have been obliged to sell them to realize the sum of $210, the rent due with interest and costs, &c. In place of the goods he has the bond, and I can see no reason why he is entitled to recover from the surety any more than he could have recovered if the goods had been returned to him.

The order of the court therefore is that the final judgment be vacated, that interlocutory judgment for the penalty of the bond be entered, or, if already entered be permmitted to stand, and that a jury be drawn from the general panel to assess the damages of the plaintiffs in accordance with law and the practice of this court.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.018-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes design requirements, approval tests, and procedures for approving retroreflective material used on lifesaving equipment.
#### § 144.205 Structural standards for a new vessel.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a new vessels must comply with the standards established by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) as provided in the following table.

| For a new vessel to be certificated for service on— | ABS Rules for Building and Classing— |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Lakes, bays, and sounds, limited coastwise, coastwise, and oceans routes; | Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters (295 Feet) in Length (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter) apply; or |
| (2) Rivers or intracoastal waterways routes | Steel Vessels for Service on Rivers and Intracoastal Waterways (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter) apply. |

Table 144.205(a)—Structural Standards for a New Vessel

(b) Alternate design standards to comply with this subpart may be approved in accordance with § 136.115 of this subchapter.

(c) The current standards of a recognized classification society, other than ABS, may be used provided they are accepted by the Coast Guard as providing an equivalent level of safety.

(d) The structural standard selected must be applied throughout the vessel including design, construction, installation, maintenance, alteration, and repair. Deviations are subject to approval by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
# C_2012200EN.01001503.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD)

(Case T-152/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark MAD - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 200/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 16 December 2010 (Case R 449/2009-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---