alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 169.211 Permit to proceed for repair. ( a ) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, may issue a permit to proceed to another port for repair, Form CG-948, to a vessel if in his judgment it can be done with safety even if the Certificate of Inspection of the vessel has expired or is about to expire.
( b ) The permit is issued only upon the written application of the master, owner, or agent of the vessel.
( c ) The permit states upon its face the conditions under which it is issued and that guests may not be carried when operating under the permit. The permit must be carried in a manner similar to that described in § 169.217(a) for a certificate of inspection.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20709 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

MAZIN MICHAEL KATTULA, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND REPORT DATE (ECF #27) 

 On June 9, 2014, the Government filed a Criminal Complaint in this Court 

alleging that Defendant Mazin Michael Kattula (“Kattula”) committed bank and wire 

fraud in violation of federal law. (See ECF #1.) Kattula was thereafter indicted on two 

counts of wire fraud. (See ECF #13.) Kattula pleaded guilty to both counts on January 

29, 2015. (See Dkt.) 

 The Court sentenced Kattula to 15 months incarceration on July 15, 2015. (See 

ECF #26.) Kattula says that he “recently received a letter from the United States 

Marshal’s Service instructing him to report to [custody] on August 24, 2015.” (ECF #27 

at ¶2, Pg. ID 153.) Kattula now asks the Court to extend his reporting date so that he 

may finish putting his affairs in order before his term of imprisonment begins. (See id. at 

¶¶ 3-4.) The Government vigorously opposes any extension of Kattula’s reporting date. 

(See ECF #29.) 

2:14-cr-20709-MFL-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 08/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 164
2

 The Court has carefully reviewed both parties’ submissions (and Kattula’s reply) 

and believes a compromise with respect to Kattula’s reporting date is appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kattula’s Motion to Extend Report Date 

(ECF #27) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Kattula’s 

currently-scheduled reporting date is extended and he shall be required to report no 

sooner than October 12, 2015. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 18, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on August 18, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cr-20709-MFL-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 08/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 165
EXHIBIT 32.2        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
------------         SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long Island Financial Corp., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
Buonaiuto, Vice President & Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2003, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                             /s/ Thomas Buonaiuto
                                                 ----------------
                                                 Thomas Buonaiuto
                                                 Vice President & Treasurer
                                                 August 16, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Long Island Financial Corp. and will be retained by Long Island
Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
§ 170.095 Data submittal for a vessel equipped to lift. The following data must be submitted with the plans required by § 170.075 if the vessel is engaged in lifting and is required to comply with subpart B of part 173 of this chapter: ( a ) A graph of maximum hook load versus maximum crane radius.
( b ) A table of crane radius versus the maximum distance above the main deck to which the hook load can be raised.
( c ) A table showing maximum vertical and transverse moments at which the crane is to operate.
#### ANTHONY REMBISZ v. CLARENCE CROSS ET AL.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justices Pabkee and Bodine.

Eor the rule, *Wayne Dumont*and *William V. Bosenkrans.*

Contra, *Feeler & Binzler.*

*950Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, while riding on his motorcycle on Broad street in the borough of Clifton, was injured in a collision between it and the defendants’ car which was traveling in the opposite direction. He brought suit to recover compensation for the injuries received in the collision and the jury awarded him $12,500;

The first ground upon which we are asked to make the present rule absolute is that the finding of the jury that the-collision was the result solely of the negligence of the driver of the defendants’ car was contrary to the clear weight of’ the testimony. Our examination of the proofs submitted leads us to the opposite conclusion.

It is further contended that the rule should be made absolute because the amount of damages assessed by the jury is excessive. It is large, but considering the expenses incurred by the plaintiff, his loss of wages, and the seriousness of his injuries, we cannot say that it was so clearly excessive as to justify us in setting it aside.

These are the only questions argued before us and we conclude that the rule to show cause should be discharged.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

SUSAN ANN LOWDEN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2867 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 32 DB 2022

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, D-142

September Term 2020)

Attorney Registration No. 60228

(Out of State)

 

 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2022, having failed to respond to a Notice and 

Order directing her to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline, 

Susan Ann Lowden is disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. She shall comply with all provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
# OoT-OST - 3003 - \\^T( o

Marc h 5 , 201 0 ,„_,^,p, .

Mr . Tod d M . Horma n Directo r Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n Washington , D

C 2059 0 RE : Essentia l Ai rServic e a t Salina , Kansa s Docke t DOT-OST2002-1137 6 Dea rMr . Horman : I fee l tha t th e citizen s o fSalina , Kansas hav e no t ha d th e opportunit yt o voic e ou rview s regardin g airlin e service . Man yo fu s hav e contacte d loca l newspaper s an d agencie s wit h concern s o f"our " leader s an d th e decision s tha t bes t represen t ou rcommunity . Th e budd ysyste m i n Salin a need s t o b e corrected . Mayb e w e coul d star t here . I d o no t fee l tha t Se a Por t Airline s o rSovereig n Ai ri s wha t th e peopl e o f Salin a want . N O SECURIT Yi n Americ a today ? Salin a i s a communit yo falmos t 50,00 0 peopl e wh o driv e t o Kansas Cityan d Wichit a instea d o fflyin g ou t o fSalina . Why ? Granted , Grea t Lake s Airline s has bee n experiencin g som e difficultie s righ t now , bu t give n a chanc e an d th e opportunit yt o fl yt o Denve ro n a 1 9 passenge rplane s wil l encourag e peopl e t o fl yrathe rtha n driv e fro m Salina . A9 passenge rplan e wit h N O SECURIT

Ywil l no t encourag e peopl e t o fly . I woul d no t wan t m ylove d one s o n tha t airplan e an d man yo fth e peopl e tha t I hav e talke d wit h personall yfee l th e same . Pleas e tak e thi s int o consideratio n befor e th e U.S . DO

Twaive s th e EA

S progra m requirement s fo rservic e a t Salina . W e as a communit y nee d a t leas t 1 5 passenge rseats . Than k yo u fo rconsiderin g m ycomments . Respectfully , Curti s Hage n
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.957 Persons in charge of transferring liquid cargo in bulk or cleaning cargo tanks. ( a ) The owner and operator of the vessel, and his or her agent, and each of them, shall ensure that— ( 1 ) Enough “Tankerman-PICs” or restricted “Tankerman-PICs”, and “Tankerman-Assistants”, authorized for the classification of cargo carried, are on duty to safely transfer liquid cargo in bulk or to safely clean cargo tanks;
( 2 ) Each transfer of liquid cargo in bulk and each cleaning of a cargo tank is supervised by a qualified person designated as a person in charge of the transfer or the cleaning under Subpart C of 33 CFR part 155;
( 3 ) When cargo regulated under this part is due for transfer, the person in charge of the transfer has received special training in the particular hazards associated with the cargo and in all special procedures for its handling; and
( 4 ) On each foreign vessel, the person in charge understands his or her responsibilities as described in this subchapter.
( b ) Upon request by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, in whose zone the transfer will take place, the owner and operator of the vessel, and his or her agent, and each of them, shall provide documentary evidence that the person in charge has received the training specified by paragraph (a)(3) of this section and is capable of competently performing the procedures necessary for the cargo.
[CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17158, Apr. 4, 1995]
# C_2011319EN.01002902.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/29

---

Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-76/11)

2011/C 319/63

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Guarino, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to be granted the expatriation allowance.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 29 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 29 April 2011;

| — | Declare, accordingly, that the applicant is entitled to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare, accordingly, that the applicant is entitled to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the Commission to pay that allowance with effect from 16 August 2010, the date of the applicant’s entry into service, together with compensatory interest, in respect of each monthly salary, until actual payment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay that allowance with effect from 16 August 2010, the date of the applicant’s entry into service, together with compensatory interest, in respect of each monthly salary, until actual payment.

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6512

WILLIAM K. DIXON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. BISHOP, JR., Warden NBCI; R. S. RODERICK, CMM & Acting 

Warden; JEFF NINES, Assistant Warden; DAYENA M. CORCORAN, 

Commissioner; WILLIAM S. BOHRER, Security Chief; JASON L. HARBAUGH, 

Captain; MARK J. CARTER, IID Exec. Dir.; EVAN ORNDORFF; JARED ZAIS; 

BRANDON CABLE; WM GILLIAN; JEREMY CRITES; ROBERT CROSS; 

VAUGHN WHITEMAN; JAMIE FARRIS, Hearing officer; NURSE TAMMY; 

ANTHONY FRENTZEL, JR., Sergeant; LEON GOODRICH; GARY DROZDA; 

DAVID ELLIFRITZ; GREGORY BEAN; JOHN DOE WILT; JOHN DOE 

DOLLY; CHRISTEL V. KELLEY; C. GILPEN; CORALYN PRICE; J. MOST; 

A.R.P. COORDINATOR JACK JOHNS, Lieutenant; JANE DOE MILLER, Female 

officer in charge O.I.C.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:18-cv-02883-TDC)

Submitted: September 8, 2021 Decided: September 21, 2021

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

William K. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William K. Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Correctional 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and dismissing the claims against 

the remaining Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on February 24, 2021. Dixon filed the notice of 

appeal on March 28, 2021.*

 Because Dixon failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date that Dixon could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
§ 176.804 Machinery. At each initial and subsequent inspection for certification of a vessel, the owner or managing operator shall be prepared to conduct tests and have the vessel ready for inspections of machinery, fuel, and piping systems, including the following: ( a ) Operation of the main propulsion machinery both ahead and astern;
( b ) Operational test and inspection of engine control mechanisms including primary and alternate means of starting machinery;
( c ) Inspection of all machinery essential to the routine operation of the vessel including generators and cooling systems;
( d ) External inspection of fuel tanks and inspection of tank vents, piping, and pipe fittings;
( e ) Inspection of all fuel system;
( f ) Operational test of all valves in fuel lines by operating locally and at remote operating positions;
( g ) Operational test of all overboard discharge and intake valves and watertight bulkhead pipe penetration valves;
( h ) Operational test of the means provided for pumping bilges; and
( i ) Test of machinery alarms including bilge high level alarms.
# C_2008055EN.01002801.xml

| 28.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/28

---

STATE AID — SWEDEN

STATE AID — SWEDEN

(Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty establishing the European Community)

Commission notice pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty — Withdrawal of notification

State aid C 46/06 (ex N 347/06) — Relief from CO2 tax on fuels consumed in installations covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme

2

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 55/16)

On 23 August 2007 the Commission decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty initiated on 8 November 2006 in respect of the measure referred to above (1), recording that Sweden had withdrawn its notification on 5 July 2007.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.12.2006, p. 27.

1

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

§ 160.132-7 Design, construction, and performance of davits. ( a ) To seek Coast Guard approval of a davit, a manufacturer must comply with, and each davit must meet, the requirements of following— ( 1 ) IMO LSA Code chapter I/1.2.2 and Chapter VI/6.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.132-5 of this subpart) applicable to the design and intended service of the davit;
( 2 ) IMO Revised recommendation on testing, part 1/8.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.132-5 of this subpart) applicable to the design and intended service of the davit;
( 3 ) 46 CFR part 159; and
( 4 ) This subpart.
( b ) Each davit must meet the following requirements— ( 1 ) *Materials.* Each major structural component of each davit must be constructed of steel. Other materials may be used if accepted by the Commandant as equivalent or superior— ( i ) Structural steel made by the open-hearth or electric furnace process must be in accordance with ASTM A 36 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.132-5 of this subpart);
( ii ) Steel castings not intended for fusion welding must be in accordance with ASTM A 36, Grades U-60-30, 60-30, 65-30, 65-35, and 70-36;
( iii ) Steel castings intended to be fabricated by fusion welding must be in accordance with ASTM A 216 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.132-5 of this subpart), Grades WCA and WCB;
( iv ) Cast iron must not be used in the construction of a davit; and
( v ) Metals in contact with each other must be either galvanically compatible or insulated with suitable non-porous materials. Provisions must also be made to prevent loosening or tightening resulting from differences of thermal expansion, freezing, buckling of parts, galvanic corrosion, or other incompatibilities;
( 2 ) *Bearings.* ( i ) Bearings must be of non-ferrous metal, or must be of the roller or ball-bearing type;
( ii ) Positive means of lubrication must be provided; and
( iii ) The manufacturer must furnish a lubrication chart for each davit together with a plate attached to the davit indicating the lubricants recommended for extremes in temperature;
( 3 ) *Guards.* All moving parts must have guards;
( 4 ) *Welding.* Welding must be performed by welders certified by the Commandant, a classification society recognized by the Commandant in accordance with 46 CFR 8.220, the U.S. Navy, or the national body where the davit is constructed or the national body's designated recognized organization. Only electrodes intended for use with the material being welded may be used. All welds must be checked using appropriate non-destructive tests; and
( 5 ) *Hydraulic systems,* if installed, must be in accordance with 46 CFR part 58, subpart 58.30.
( c ) Determinations of equivalence of design, construction, and materials will be made by the Commandant only.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.050-21 Separator: Design specification. ( a ) A separator must be designed to operate in each plane that forms an angle of 22.5° with the plane of its normal operating position.
( b ) The electrical components of a separator that are to be installed in an explosive atmosphere must be approved by an independent laboratory as components that Underwriters Laboratories Standard 913 (dated April 8, 1976) (incorporated by reference, see § 162.050-4) defines as intrinsically safe for use in a Class I, Group D hazardous location.
( c ) Each separator component that is a moving part must be designed so that its movement during operation of the separator does not cause formation of static electricity.
( d ) Each separator must be designed in accordance with the applicable requirements in subchapters F and J of this chapter.
( e ) Each separator must be designed to be operated both automatically and manually. Each separator must be capable of operating automatically for at least 24 hours.
( f ) Each separator must be designed so that adjustments to valves or other equipment are not necessary to start it.
( g ) Each part of a separator that is susceptible to wear and tear must be readily accessible for maintenance in its installed position.
( h ) A separator must be designed so that it does not rely in whole or in part on dilution of influent mixtures as a means of performing its function.
[CGD 76-088a, 44 FR 53359, Sept. 13, 1979, as amended by USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3388, Jan. 16, 2009]
# C_2008250EN.01000101.xml

| 2.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2008/C 250/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 29.8.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 747/07 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Veneto |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aiuti alla ristrutturazione a favore delle imprese attive nel settore della produzione animale |
| Legal basis | Legge regionale n. 40/2003 «Nuove norme per gli interventi in agricoltura»; deliberazione della Giunta regionale 3486 del 6.11.2007: «Nuove norme per gli interventi in agricoltura, articoli 59 e 60. Aiuti per il salvataggio e la ristrutturazione» |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Aid to restructure small enterprises in the sector of animal production |
| Form of aid | Interest subsidy |
| Budget | EUR 2 500 000 |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 2008 |
| Economic sectors | Agricultural sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Giunta regionale del Veneto |
| Dorsoduro 3901 |
| I-30123 Venezia |

Date of adoption of the decision

29.8.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 747/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Veneto

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aiuti alla ristrutturazione a favore delle imprese attive nel settore della produzione animale

Legal basis

Legge regionale n. 40/2003 «Nuove norme per gli interventi in agricoltura»; deliberazione della Giunta regionale 3486 del 6.11.2007: «Nuove norme per gli interventi in agricoltura, articoli 59 e 60. Aiuti per il salvataggio e la ristrutturazione»

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Aid to restructure small enterprises in the sector of animal production

Form of aid

Interest subsidy

Budget

EUR 2 500 000

Intensity

—

Duration

2008

Economic sectors

Agricultural sector

Name and address of the granting authority

Giunta regionale del Veneto

Dorsoduro 3901

I-30123 Venezia

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---