alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 13.125 Physical and medical requirements.

Each applicant for an original tankerman endorsement must meet the physical requirements of part 10, subpart C, of this chapter.

[CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17142, Apr. 4, 1995, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11259, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77994, Dec. 24, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 161

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 161.013-17 Manufacturer notification.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76704, Sept. 18, 2024.

Each manufacturer certifying lights in accordance with the specifications of this subpart must send written notice to the Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509 within 30 days after first certifying them, and send a new notice every five years thereafter as long as it certifies lights.

[CGD 76-183a, 44 FR 73054, Dec. 17, 1979, as amended by CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34536, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50467, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50733, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60160, Sept. 30, 2013]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0005454 05-MAY-2015 08:09 AM
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending December 31, 2005

|Filer                             | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                          
|--------------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC.        | * 3A3       | Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, and The New Galveston Company, Wilmington, Delaware, to acquire 100 percent of Alamo Corporation of Texas, Alamo, Texas, and indirectly acquire Alamo Corporation of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, and Alamo Bank of Texas, Alamo, Texas. | Newspaper:01/26/2006Federal Register:01/27/2006
|Newspaper:                        | 01/26/2006 
|Federal Register:                 | 01/27/2006 
|MESQUITE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. | * 3A3       | Mesquite Financial Services, Inc., Alice, Texas, to acquire 100 percent of Nichols Bancshares, Inc., Kenedy, Texas, and indirectly acquire J M Nichols, Wilmington, Delaware, and First-Nichols National Bank, Kenedy, Texas.                                                               | Newspaper:01/21/2006Federal Register:01/27/2006
|Newspaper:                        | 01/21/2006 
|Federal Register:                 | 01/27/2006 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### HERMAN SCHROEDER, Jr., PLAINTIFF, v. THOMAS WHITESIDE ET AL., DEFENDANTS. EDWARD G. HILL, PLAINTIFF, v. THOMAS WHITESIDE ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Decided May 7, 1929.

Argued before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

For the rule, *Eugene G. Schwinghammer*and *Paul M. Salsburg.*

Contra, *Cole & Cole.*

Per Curiam.

Each of these cases is identical in character and were tried together. The defendants in the suits are one Whiteside, a *489member of the Local Union Brotherhood of Painters, and the union itself. The complaint in each case avers that White-side caused the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff upon a false charge of criminal conspiracy; and, further, that at his instigation, the Local Union Brotherhood of Painters, without just cause, illegally expelled the plaintiff from membership therein with the result that his ability to obtain employment was practically destroyed. Based upon these facts each plaintiff claimed to be entitled to compensatory and punitive damages against Whiteside and also against the Local Union Brotherhood of Painters.

The trial of the two cases resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiffs; the jury awarding each of them $2,000 as against Whiteside on the charge of false imprisonment and $10,500 against the two defendants jointly for wrongful expulsion from membership in the union.

Our examination of the proofs in these cases convinces us that the total award of $12,500 to each of the plaintiffs is grossly excessive, and that for this reason the verdict in each case should be set aside. Eeaching this conclusion, we have not considered it necessary to pass upon the other reasons submitted by counsel for the defendant in support of his contention that a new trial should be directed.

The rule to show cause will be made absolute.
§ 169.226 Periodic inspection. ( a ) Your vessel must undergo a periodic inspection within 3 months before or after the second or third anniversary of the date of your vessel's Certificate of Inspection. This periodic inspection will take the place of an annual inspection.
( 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 periodic inspection is the same as that for the inspection for certification, as specified in § 169.222. The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection will insure that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your vessel passes the periodic inspection, the marine inspector will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( d ) If the periodic 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]
Exhibit 23.1 - Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-10435) pertaining to the Affinity Technology Group, Inc. 1995 Stock
Option Plan, 1996 Stock Option and the Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option
Plan, of our report dated January 24, 2007, except for Notes 1 and 11, which are
as of January 30, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Affinity Technology Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.





                                         /s/  SCOTT McELVEEN, L.L.P.


Columbia, South Carolina
January 30, 2007





                                       52
# C_2014212EN.01002401.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

(Case T-553/11) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services relating to IT infrastructure and applications for the ECB - Rejection of the application - Action for annulment - Act open to challenge - Admissibility - Criteria for selecting candidates - Compliance of an application with the conditions laid down in the call for applications - Obligation to state reasons - Failure to exercise the power to ask for clarification in relation to an application - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - Action for damages))

2014/C 212/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and P. Pfeifhofer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of the decision of the ECB to reject the application of a temporary grouping of undertakings including the applicant to participate in a negotiated tendering procedure concerning information technology services, of the decision of the Procurement Review Body of the ECB to reject the appeal against that decision, and of all related decisions of the ECB and (ii) for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 99.1

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

The undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive  Officer of
Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

     (a)  the  Quarterly  Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended
          September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     (b)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  the  results  of
          operations of the Fund for such period.


Dated:  November 14, 2002


                                                    /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
MILK TRANSPORTATION OFFER
                            -------------------------

         On December 26, 2000, Con-ser, S.A.("Conser") issued to Mastellone
Hnos. S.A. ("MHSA") a Milk Transportation Offer, which was subsequently amended
on June 14, 2002, June 17, 2003, and September 19, 2003 (the "Milk
Transportation Offer"). The Milk Transportation Offer require Conser to provide
carrier services for raw milk from the producers' facilities to MHSAs' plants.
The effective date of the Milk Transportation Offer is January 1, 2001.

         Obligations under the Milk Transportation Offer expire on January 1,
2006. However, the Milk Transportation Offer is automatically extended for
subsequent periods of five years, unless either Conser or MHSA notifies the
other party at least 365 days prior to the automatic renewal date that Conser or
MHSA desires to exit the Milk Transportation Offer.

         Under the Milk Transportation Offer, Conser will coordinate, carry and
assist MHSA in the hiring of a transportation company, for the carrying of milk
from the dairy farms to MHSA. Conser must hire carriers to transport raw milk
from the dairy farms to MHSA's plants. If Conser cannot hire a carrier Conser is
responsible for transporting the milk. Conser assumes the risk of loss or damage
from the raw milk producers' pick-up sites to the factories. Finally, Conser
must ensure that the carriers' performance meet national, health,
transportation, and insurance codes as well as the MHSA s' milk shipping
standards; must control the quality of the milk transported, and will control at
the relevant dairy farms the completion of MHSA's imposed standards.

         MHSA has agreed to pay Conser the following retribution: (i) for the
services of hiring, coordination and technical assistance, a monthly fee of
$150,000 plus value added tax. (ii) for transportation services rendered
directly by Conser, based on the amount of milk transported for MHSA, all of
Conser's costs as described under the Milk Transportation Offer, and additional
7,5% of the total carrier costs; (iii) for transportation services rendered by
third parties, MHSA will pay all third party carrier costs as described under
the Milk Transportation Offer, plus an additional 12,50% of said amount.

         Under the Milk Transportation Offer Conser will bill its retribution on
a monthly basis, and MHSA will pay such bill within five business days from
receipt thereof.

         If a MHSA fails to pay Conser for 20 consecutive days or for 60
alternate days, during a period of one year, Conser may rescind the Milk
Transportation Offer or suspend performance of its obligations until MHSA pays
all outstanding debts owed to Conser. Finally, both MHSA and Conser have the
right to rescind the a Milk Transportation Offer if a party is insolvent.

         According to the Milk Transportation Offer, Conser is liable vis a vis
MHSA from any claim brought to MHSA with respect to Conser's employees.
Furthermore,




Conser has agreed to fulfill all the requirements imposed under employment
applicable rules and regulations and to control the fulfillment by the
independent carriers.
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. HARRY RUSSAKOW, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued January term, 1929

Decided March 5, 1929.

Before Justices Pariceb, Minturn and Campbell.

Eor the plaintiff in error, *Palmer £ Powell.*

For the state, *George M. Hillman.*

Pee Cubiam.

The Burlington county grand jury indicted the defendant under two indictments, one for unlawful possesssion of uten*196sils to be used in the manufacture of liquor, and another for unlawfully transporting and unlawfully possessing liquor.

The record shows that on May 12th, 1927, the defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. May 25th, 1927, the record 'shows “the prisoner, on being placed at the bar and being charged, retracts his former plea of not guilty entered heretofore, and entered a plea of non vult thereto; thereupon the court continued the case to June 2d, 1927, and ordered indictments for possession of utensils, &c., *nolle prossed.”*

June 9th, 1927, the record states, “on motion of the prosecutor of the pleas, the court ordered the records of this indictment amended, thereby placing said indictment in full force and effect, and continued the case. On the same day the court ordered the plea of non vult withdrawn, and the former plea of not guilty entered, and on that state of the record on June 28th, 1927, the defendant was tried and convicted on both indictments and was fined $500 on each.

On May 25th the defendant’s counsel endeavored to obtain a concession for entering a plea of non vult; the prosecutor states that in the ensuing discussion he offered to withdraw the count as to possession of liquor in one indictment only, as the limit of the state’s concession. The memorandum taken by the court at the time 'shows that the defendant pleaded to both indictments, and was tried upon that theory.

The case is here on a strict writ of error. The defendant excepted to proceeding to trial on the indictment claimed to have been *nolle prossed,*and to the court charging the jury on that indictment.

The defendant states in his brief that the question at issue is the right of- the court to reinstate an indictment, which had been *nolle prossed.*

We think there is no doubt as to the right of the court to correct an error in its records, and to proceed with the trial upon the record thus corrected. *Fraley*v. *Feather,*46 *N. J. L.*429; 17 *Am. & Eng. Encycl.*813, &c.

The judgment of conviction will therefore be affirmed.
§ 169.619 Reliability. ( a ) Except where the OCMI judges it impracticable, the steering system must— ( 1 ) Provide continued or restored steering capability in the event of a failure or malfunction of any single steering system component other than the rudder or rudder stock;
( 2 ) Be independent of other systems, including auxiliary propulsion machinery; and
( 3 ) Be operable in the event of localized fire or flooding.
( b ) A main and independent auxiliary steering gear must be provided, except when— ( 1 ) A small vessel uses a tiller or direct mechanical linkage as the primary means of controlling the rudder; or
( 2 ) Installation of an auxiliary steering gear is not possible. Note:
A partial reduction of normal steering capability as a result of malfunction or failure is acceptable. This reduction should not be below that necessary for the safe navigation of the vessel.
( c ) The strength and reliability of any component that is not provided in duplicate must be suitable to the cognizant OCMI. Where redundant or backup equipment or components are provided to meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the following must be provided: ( 1 ) A means to readily transfer from the failed equipment or component to the backup.
( 2 ) Readily available tools or equipment necessary to make the transfer.
( 3 ) Instructions for transfer procedures, posted at the main steering location.
( 4 ) A means to steady the rudder while making the transfer.
Coffee Holding Co., Inc.
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                                                        Years Ended October 31,
                                                          2005          2004
                                                      ------------  ------------

Net Income                                            $  1,185,135  $    875,342
                                                      ============  ============
BASIC EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                            4,721,327     3,999,650
                                                      ============  ============
Basic earnings (loss) per common share                $       0.25  $       0.22
                                                      ============  ============

DILUTED EARNINGS:
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                            4,721,327     3,999,650

Warrants - common stock equivalents                         55,430             0
                                                      ------------  ------------
Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding - as adjusted                                4,776,757     3,999,650
                                                      ============  ============
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share              $       0.25  $       0.22
                                                      ============  ============
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY S. BLANEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 00-6440

G. F. DRISCOLL, Law Librarian,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-98-1449-AM)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: October 13, 2000

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jeffrey S. Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey S. Blaney appeals from the district court's decisions denying injunctive relief, refusing to appoint counsel, denying leave to

amend, and entering partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee

G.F. Driscoll, the law librarian at Virginia Beach City Jail. We grant

Blaney's motion to amend his notice of appeal, which cures one jurisdictional defect affecting his claims. Nevertheless, we dismiss his

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

After filing this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action,

Blaney was transferred from Virginia Beach to an Illinois prison;

thus, his requests for injunctions against Driscoll are moot, see Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148-49 (1975) (per curiam), as is his

motion for an injunction barring his transfer to Illinois, see Railway

Labor Executives Ass'n v. Chesapeake W. Ry., 915 F.2d 116, 118-19

(4th Cir. 1990). As for the district court's procedural rulings, this

Court ordinarily may not entertain interlocutory appeals from the

refusal to appoint counsel, see Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964

(4th Cir. 1987), or the denial of leave to amend, see Kahn v. Chase

Manhattan Bank, N.A., 91 F.3d 385, 388 (2d Cir. 1996); Kartell v.

Blue Shield, 687 F.2d 543, 551 (1st Cir. 1982). Finally, the order

granting partial summary judgment is not properly before the Court

because the district court has not certified this partial judgment for

immediate appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

For these reasons, we dismiss Blaney's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

 2