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

§ 153.1114 Conditions under which a prewash may be omitted: Categories A, B, and C. A prewash required by this part may be omitted if one of the following requirements is met: ( a ) A Surveyor has signed a statement in the Cargo Record Book that the next cargo has been determined to be one that may be loaded without washing the tank, and the tank is not washed or ballasted before it is loaded with the next cargo.
( b ) A Surveyor has signed a statement in the Cargo Record Book that the approved Procedures and Arrangements Manual contains procedures for removing the NLS residue by ventilation, and the cargo tank is not washed or ballasted before being cleaned following the ventilation procedure. Note:
The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.*) allows states to regulate emissions from tank ventilation. There may be other regulations, both local and Federal, that affect the use of tank ventilation for safety or environmental purposes.
( c ) The tank requiring the prewash has a waiver issued under § 153.483 or § 153.491 and the waiver states when the tank is to be prewashed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, May 18, 2007, 8 a.m. to May 18, 2007, 5 p.m., Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 29, 2007, 72 FR 14824.                

The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: April 2, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1731  Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 16.113 Chemical drug testing. ( a ) Drug testing programs required by this part must be conducted in accordance with 49 CFR part 40, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Testing Programs. This subpart summarizes the responsibilities of credentialed mariners, marine employers, MRO, SAP and other chemical testing service providers in 49 CFR part 40. The regulations in 49 CFR part 40 should be consulted to determine the specific procedures which must be established and utilized. Drug testing programs required by this part must use only drug testing laboratories certified by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
( b ) Each specimen collected in accordance with this part will be tested, as provided in 49 CFR 40.85, for the following: ( 1 ) Marijuana;
( 2 ) Cocaine;
( 3 ) Opiates;
( 4 ) Phencyclidine (PCP); and
( 5 ) Amphetamines.
[USCG-2000-7759, 66 FR 42968, Aug. 16, 2001, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11264, Mar. 16, 2009]
#### Paulina Stelmacher, *Respondent, v.*Christopher Wesp, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, 'with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 11.107 Paperwork approval. ( a ) This section lists the control numbers assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in this part.
( b ) The following control numbers have been assigned to the sections indicated: ( 1 ) OMB 1625-0040-46 CFR 11.201, 11.202, 11.205, 11.470, 11.472, 11.474, 11.542, and 11.544.
( 2 ) OMB 1625-028-46 CFR 11.480.
**EXHIBIT
      32**











**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL**


**OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Carey G. Birmingham, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of United Restaurant Management, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
      quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of United Restaurant Management,
      Inc.





Date:  November
      16, 2007





By:*/s/ Carey G. Birmingham*


Carey
      G.
      Birmingham,


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Principal
      Accounting Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

India Wymes,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:15−cv−10579−SFC−RSW

Hon. Sean F. Cox

William Alexander,

Defendant(s).

NOTICE OF REMAND

TO: OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

 Enclosed are certified copies of the Order of Remand and this Court's docket sheet.

 Please acknowledge receipt of these documents by returning a time−stamped copy of this

Notice to:

Clerk's Office

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

231 W. Lafayette Boulevard, 5th Floor

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 234−5005

Certification

 I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By: s/ D. Peruski 

Deputy Clerk

Dated: February 18, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-10579-SFC-RSW ECF No. 5 filed 02/18/15 PageID.22 Page 1 of 1
SUPREME COURT.

#### Powers agt. Trenor.

*New York, at Chambers,*

*October,*1874.

*Motion to set mide judgment of forécloswre, for irregular appearance of attorney.*

Where merits are shown, and the insolvency of the attorney maybe inferred, the court will let in the defendant on the merits, on a motion to set aside a judgment of foreclosure.

Where the right claimed by the defendant to have the service and judgment, set aside without terms, it appears that the right of merits is against the defendant, his motion will be denied.

Motion to set aside judgment of foreclosure for irregularity.

Donohue, *J.*

— This motion is made, on behalf of the defendant, Trenor, to set aside a judgment in foreclosure. The sole ground of the "motion is, that there was no service on or appearance for the party! It is not denied that there was an actual appearance by attorney,' but it is claimed the attorney was not authorized. The court will not, on this motion, as a matter of right, on the part of the defendant in default, look behind the appearance. It will, where merits are shown, and insolvency of the attorney may be inferred, let in the defendant on the merits; but on the motion he puts his claim on no such ground. He insists on the right to have the court set aside the judgment, regular on its face, and leave the plaintiff to make a new service on the merits of the appearance. I think the willful misstatement of the defendant’s son, that he never authorized an appearance, met by his *501written authority, shows an entire bad faith on his part, tainting the whole merits of ■ the motion. So far as the merits of the motion are before the court, in aid ¿imply of the right claimed by the defendant to have the service and judgment set aside without terms, the right of merit is against the defendant; his denial of the execution of the mortgage, met as it is, seems to imply an equal forgetfulness as evinced by his son.

Motion denied.
§ 167.15-25 Inspection standards for hulls, boilers and machinery. Except as otherwise provided by law or regulations in this subpart, the following standards shall be accepted as standard by the inspectors: ( a ) American Bureau of Shipping “Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels” regarding the construction of hulls, boilers and machinery in effect on the date of inspection. These rules may be purchased from the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), ABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060.
( b ) U. S. Navy Standard Construction Specification in effect on the date of inspection.
( c ) U. S. Coast Guard Standard Construction Specification in effect on the date of inspection.
[CGFR 51-11, 16 FR 3218, Apr. 12, 1951, as amended by USCG-1999-6216, 64 FR 53228, Oct. 1, 1999; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58464, Sept. 29, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.013-3 Material properties and workmanship. ( a ) *General.* The unicellular polyethylene foam shall be all new material complying with the requirements outlined in this specification. Unicellular polyethylene foam must comply with the requirements of UL 1191, sections 24, 25, and 26 and its assigned Use Code. Thickness tolerances of the foam must permit the manufacture of PFDs complying with their required buoyancy tolerances.
( b ) *Use Codes 4BC, 4H.* Each foam which has a C-factor of at least 94 according to UL 1191 may be assigned Use Codes 4BC and 4H.
( c ) *Use Codes 2, 3, 5R.* Each foam which has a V-factor of at least 85 according to UL 1191 may be assigned Use Codes 2, 3, 5R (recreational use applications).
# C_2012273EN.01001001.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/10

---

Order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Woodman Labs v OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)

(Case T-606/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 273/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Woodman Labs, Inc. (Sausalito, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2011 (Case R 876/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL and Woodman Labs, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
New American Healthcare Corporation


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of New
American Healthcare Corporation on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-73323 and 333-81189) of
our reports dated May 14, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
New American Healthcare Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
March 31, 1999, and related schedule, which reports appear in the March 31,
1999 annual report on Form 10-K of New American Healthcare Corporation.


                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


                                   /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
June 28, 1999
§ 286.165 How is a Tribal Family Assistance Plan amended? ( a ) An amendment to a TFAP is necessary if the Tribe makes any substantial changes to the plan, including those which impact an individual's eligibility for Tribal TANF services or participation requirements, or any other program design changes which alter the nature of the program.
( b ) A Tribe must submit a plan amendment(s) to the Secretary no later than 30 days prior to the proposed implementation date. Proposed implementation dates shall be the first day of any month.
( c ) We will promptly review and either approve or disapprove the plan amendment(s).
( d ) Approved plan amendments are effective no sooner than 30 days after date of submission.
( e ) A Tribe whose plan amendment is disapproved may petition for an administrative review of such disapproval under § 286.170 and may appeal our final written decision to the Departmental Appeals Board no later than 30 days from the date of the disapproval. This appeal to the Board should follow the provisions of the rules under this subpart and those at 45 CFR part 16, where applicable.
# C_2011269EN.01003801.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/38

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

(Case C-373/11)

2011/C 269/78

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou

Applicant:

Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, under which the Member States are permitted to set different retention percentages, up to the limit of 10 % of the component of national ceilings referred to in Article 41, for the making of an additional payment to producers, while observing the criteria set out in the third paragraph of Article 69, compatible, in permitting this differentiation as regards the retention percentage, with Articles 2 EC, 32 EC and 34 EC and with the objectives of ensuring a stable income for producers and maintaining rural areas?

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.1801 Certificates, letters, and endorsements: U.S. flag vessels.

No person may operate a U.S. flag vessel unless the vessel has a Certificate of Inspection, issued under Subchapter D of this chapter, which is endorsed with the name of the cargo that it is allowed to carry.
From: "Pugh, Theresa" <TPugh@publicpower.org>

To: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/10/2012 03:37 PM Subject: FW : APPA m aterials for OMB meeting Feb. 13, 2012 (UARG meeting at 1 PM ET)

**From:** Pugh, Theresa **Sent:** Friday, February 10, 2012 3:08 PM **To:** 'Echols, Mabel E.' **Cc:** 'Wehrum, William L.' **Subject:** APPA materials for OMB meeting Feb. 13, 2012 (UARG meeting at 1 PM ET) 

### Good afternoon. Attached are handouts from APPA on CCS (geologic sequestration). I will separately send you the APPA natural gas study which is also relevant. Thank you for allowing us to have this meeting. Theresa
Theresa Pugh Director, Env ironmental Services APPA 1875 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 1200 Washington, D. C. 20009 

## 202 467 2943 (direct) 202

-495

-7443 personal fax number Note new e

- mail address: TPugh@publicpower.org
# C_2013079EN.01003301.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 January 2013 — BO v Commission

(Case F-27/11) (1)

1

(Staff case - Social security - Payment of transport costs connected to medical care - Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons)

2013/C 79/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BO (Amman, Jordan) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Application for annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing to authorise medical benefits requested by the applicant for his son, his wife and himself.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 1 June 2010 refusing to pay the costs for the transport and accompaniment of BO’s son; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 1 June 2010 refusing to pay the costs for the transport and accompaniment of BO’s son;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by BO.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.11, p. 33.

1

---
# C_2013245EN.01000802.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-552/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Contract concerning financial assistance of the European Union for a project in the field of medical collaboration - Debit note - Contractual nature of the dispute - Measure not reviewable - Inadmissibility - Counterclaim for payment)

2013/C 245/11

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and S. Lejeune, Agents, and E. Petritsi, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission on 9 September 2011 in order to recover the sum of EUR 83 001,09 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance for a project and, on the other hand, a counterclaim seeking an order requiring the applicant to pay that sum together with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action for annulment as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action for annulment as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the European Commission EUR 83 001,09 by way of principal sum and EUR 11,37 per day in respect of default interest falling due from 25 October 2011 until discharge of the principal debt; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the European Commission EUR 83 001,09 by way of principal sum and EUR 11,37 per day in respect of default interest falling due from 25 October 2011 until discharge of the principal debt;

| 3. | Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

1

---
**EXHIBIT
      32**











**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL**


**OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Carey G. Birmingham, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of International Test Systems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
      ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of International Test Systems,
      Inc.





Date:  August
      2, 2007





By:*/s/ Carey G. Birmingham*


Carey
      G.
      Birmingham,


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Principal
      Accounting Officer