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

§ 161.012-17 Instructions. ( a ) Each light must have instructions on how to attach it to a PFD in a manner that complies with § 161.012-7(a). However, in the case of lights that are to be attached by a PFD manufacturer, only one set of instructions need be provided for each shipment of lights.
( b ) If a light is designed to be attached to a finished PFD, any attachment materials that are not supplied with the light must be clearly identified in the instructions. If a light is to be attached to a finished PFD by a PFD purchaser, any attachment materials not supplied with the light must be generally available for purchase.
( c ) Each set of instructions must— ( 1 ) Clearly identify the kind of PFD construction (for example fabric covered or vinyl dipped) to which the light can be attached; and
( 2 ) Not require penetration of the buoyant material of the PFD.
[CGD 76-028, 44 FR 38785, July 2, 1979, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58286, Sept. 29, 2014]
§ 111.60-17 Connections and terminations. ( a ) In general, connections and terminations to all conductors must retain the original electrical, mechanical, flame-retarding, and, where necessary, fire-resisting properties of the cable. All connecting devices must be suitable for copper stranded conductors.
( b ) If twist-on type of connectors are used, the connections must be made within an enclosure and the insulated cap of the connector must be secured to prevent loosening due to vibration.
( c ) Twist-on type of connectors may not be used for making joints in cables, facilitating a conductor splice, or extending the length of a circuit.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28281, June 4, 1996]
<PAGE>   1
                                                             Exhibit 21

                       Loral Space & Communications Ltd.

As of February 28, 1997, active subsidiaries, all 100% owned directly or
indirectly (except as noted below) consist of the following:


                                                   State or Country
                                                   of Incorporation
                                                  ------------------

Loral Space & Communications Corporation                Delaware
 Loral General Partner, Inc.                            Delaware
 Loral SpaceCom Corporation                             Delaware
  Space Systems/Loral, Inc.(1)                          Delaware
   International Space Technology, Inc.(2)              Delaware
    Cosmotech(2)                                        Russian Federation
   SS/L Export Corporation(1)                           U.S. Virgin Islands
 Loral Travel Services, Inc.                            Delaware
K&F Industries, Inc.(3)                                 Delaware
Globalstar, L.P.(4)                                     Delaware
 Globalstar Capital Corporation(4)                      Delaware
 GlobalTel(5)                                           Russian Federation
 GlobalTrak Pty(4)                                      Australia
Globalstar Telecommunications Limited(6)                Bermuda
LGP (Bermuda) Ltd.                                      Bermuda
Loral Canada Holdings Ltd.                              Bermuda
Loral/DASA Globalstar, L.P.(7)                          Delaware
Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P.(1)                     Delaware
 LQ Licensee, Inc.(1)                                    Delaware
Loral/Qualcomm Satellite Services, L.P.(8)              Delaware
Loral Skynet Ltd.                                       Bermuda
Loral SpaceCom DBS Holdings, Inc.                       Delaware
 R/L DBS Company L.L.C.(9)                              Delaware
 Loral SpaceCom DBS, Inc.                               Delaware
  Continental Satellite Corporation(10)                 California


(1)  Only 51% owned directly or indirectly
(2)  Only 22.9% owned directly or indirectly
(3)  Only 22.5% owned directly or indirectly
(4)  Only 33.8% owned directly or indirectly
(5)  Only 16.6% owned directly or indirectly
(6)  Only 14.1% owned directly or indirectly
(7)  Only 66.7% owned directly or indirectly
(8)  Only 52.9% owned directly or indirectly
(9)  Only 50% owned directly or indirectly
(10) Only 86% owned directly or indirectly
#### Edward R. McGlynn, trustee of James L. Kempthorne, bankrupt, complainant, *v.*James L. Kempthorne et al., defendants.

[Decided June 19th, 1929.]

*Mr. William A.*Lord, for the complainant.

*Mr. John A.*Bernhard, for the defendants.

Backes, Y. C.

James L. Kempthorne filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in June, 1927. About the same time his wife acquired title to her home in Maplewood in which she invested $2,500. The trustee in bankruptcy seeks to impress the property with a trust in favor of the bankrupt’s estate, claiming that the bankrupt furnished the $2,500 purchase price and took title in his wife’s name in fraud of creditors; and failing in that, the trustee seeks to impress the property with a trust for $2,500, charging that the purchase price was paid by the wife out of money received from the bankrupt in payment of a debt due her while he was bankrupt and within four months before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, contrary to section 96 of the Bankruptcy act.

It is established that the money paid in the purchase of the property belonged to the wife, not the bankrupt.

*540- There is no evidence of bankruptcy before the date of filing of the petition, and the proof is that the debt was repaid to the wife more than four months before its filing. It came about in this manner. After the Kempthornes were-married in 1924 the wife, from time to time, loaned the-husband monejr, upwards of $5,000 for use in his business, which he repaid down to approximately $2,000. In the year before the bankruptcy, when his business was apparently flourishing, it was arranged that the husband should invest, the balance due his wife, or as much of it as was required, in a joint real estate venture which turned out profitably. He invested of her money $1,500 upon which a profit of $4,000 was realized just before the petition in bankruptcy. Out of the net return the husband took $3,000 and the wife $2,500, and with her share she purchased the premises in suit. The trustee’s contention that the $2,500 was a preferential payment of her debt within four months of the bankruptcy is without merit. The payment took place at the time of the investment, the year before bankruptcy. That was the arrangement. That is the undisputed and unimpeached testimony, all of which comes from the defense produced by the trustee, and to which he is committed. The unfavorable inferences which he seeks to draw from it does not sustain the charge of fraud, and' no violation of the Bankruptcy act appearing, the bill will be dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.007-1 Applicable specification and referenced material. ( a ) *Specification.* The following specification of the issue in effect on the date of manufacture of the structural insulation shall form a part of the regulations of this subpart (see §§ 2.75-17 through 2.75-19 of subchapter A (Procedures Applicable to the Public) of this chapter: ( 1 ) Coast Guard specification: Subpart 164.009 of this part, Incombustible Materials for Merchant Vessels.
( b ) *Guidance.* For guidance you may use the following technical reference: ASTM E 119-98, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. You may obtain it from The American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
( c ) *Copies on file.* A copy of the specification listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall be kept on file by the manufacturer, together with the certificate of approval and this specification. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to have the latest issue of the specification on hand together with the certificate of approval and approved plans when manufacturing under this specification subpart. ( 1 ) The Coast Guard specification may be obtained from the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact 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.
[CGFR 69-72, 34 FR 17498, Oct. 29, 1969, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4783, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50467, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67185, Dec. 1, 1999; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60161, Sept. 30, 2013]
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending January 7, 2006

|Filer                       | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                          
|--------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------
|NEW RICHMOND BANCORPORATION | CIC         | Interagency Notice of Change in Bank Control filed by Mr. Jay L. Dunlap, Lincoln, NB acting as attorney and agent on behalf of Mark Dunlap to vote 58.25 shares or 55.48% of the outstanding voting shares of New Richmond Bancorporation, New Richmond, OH. | Newspaper:01/09/2006Federal Register:12/23/2005
|Newspaper:                  | 01/09/2006 
|Federal Register:           | 12/23/2005 

## 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY D. TRUITTE,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL H. RENICO,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 02-CV-72486

HON. GERALD E. ROSEN

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner Rodney D. Truitte filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 29, 2004, the Court issued an Opinion and

Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner then filed a Motion for

Certificate of Appealability. The Court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of

Appealability. Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Motion for

Certificate of Appealability, which the Court denied on April 11, 2005. Now before the

Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 11, 2005 Order.

In a motion for rehearing or reconsideration “the movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but

also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” L.R.

7.1(g)(3). A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,

manifest or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.

2:02-cv-72486-GER Doc # 54 Filed 05/13/05 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 292
2

2004) (Gadola, J.). Further, the Local Rules also provide that “the court will not grant

motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon

by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” L.R. 7.1(g). 

Petitioner’s arguments in support of reconsideration amount to a disagreement

with the Court’s decision. A motion predicated on such an argument is an insufficient

ground upon which to grant a motion for reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(g)(3); see also,

Meekison v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572

(S.D. Ohio 1998). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the Court’s decision was based

upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled. Therefore, the Court shall deny

the Motion for Reconsideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is

DENIED. 

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Gerald E. Rosen

United States District Judge

Dated: May 13, 2005

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

on May 13, 2005, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:02-cv-72486-GER Doc # 54 Filed 05/13/05 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 293
§ 143.580 Alternative electrical installations. In lieu of meeting the requirements of §§ 143.555 through 143.575, a vessel may meet the following: ( a ) ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters (295 Feet) in Length (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter), Part 4, Chapter 6; or
( b ) ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels for Service on Rivers and Intracoastal Waterways (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter), Part 4, Chapter 5, if they operate exclusively on rivers or intracoastal waterways.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: AAMP OF FLORIDA, INC.,

Appellant

______________________

2019-1074

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/013,891.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

MARK H. BLOOMBERG, Zuber Lawler & Del Duca LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

JOEL WEISS, JACOB BALDINGER, Weiss & Arons LLP, Spring 

Valley, NY. 

 MONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by 

MICHAEL S. FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL,

COKE MORGAN STEWART. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
 PER CURIAM (REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 October 7, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
§ 11.501 Grades and types of national engineer endorsements issued. ( a ) National engineer endorsements are issued in the grades of— ( 1 ) Chief engineer;
( 2 ) First assistant engineer;
( 3 ) Second assistant engineer;
( 4 ) Third assistant engineer;
( 5 ) Chief engineer (limited);
( 6 ) Assistant engineer (limited);
( 7 ) Designated duty engineer;
( 8 ) Chief engineer uninspected fishing industry vessels;
( 9 ) Assistant engineer uninspected fishing industry vessels;
( 10 ) Chief engineer (MODU);
( 11 ) Assistant engineer (MODU);
( 12 ) Chief engineer (OSV); and
( 13 ) Assistant engineer (OSV).
( b ) Engineer endorsements issued in the grades of chief engineer (limited) and assistant engineer (limited) of steam, motor, and/or gas turbine-propelled vessels allow the holder to serve within any propulsion power limitations on vessels of unlimited tonnage on inland waters and of less than 1,600 GRT in ocean, near-coastal, or Great Lakes service in the following manner: ( 1 ) Chief engineer (limited) may serve on oceans and near-coastal waters.
( 2 ) Assistant engineer (limited) may serve on ocean and near-coastal waters.
( c ) Engineer licenses or MMC endorsements issued in the grades of designated duty engineer of steam, motor, and/or gas turbine-propelled vessels allow the holder to serve within stated propulsion power limitations on vessels of less than 500 GRT in the following manner: ( 1 ) Designated duty engineers limited to vessels of less than 1,000 HP or 4,000 HP may serve only on near-coastal or inland waters.
( 2 ) Designated duty engineers-unlimited may serve on any waters.
( d ) An engineer officer's license or MMC endorsement authorizes service on steam, motor, or gas turbine-propelled vessels or may authorize all modes of propulsion.
( e ) A person holding an engineer license or MMC endorsement that is restricted to near-coastal waters may serve within the limitations of the license or MMC upon near-coastal, Great Lakes, and inland waters.
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.

§ 154.1846 Relief valves: Changing set pressure. The master shall: ( a ) Supervise the changing of the set pressure of relief valves under § 154.802(b);
( b ) Enter the change of set pressure in the vessel's log; and
( c ) Ensure that a sign showing the set pressure is posted: ( 1 ) In the cargo control room or station; and
( 2 ) At each relief valve.
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 10.29

                            MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

      North Pointe Insurance Company of 28819 Franklin Road, Southfield,
Michigan 48034 and N. P. Premium Finance Company of 28819 Franklin Road,
Southfield, Michigan 48034, effective March 1, 2002, agree as follows:

      North Pointe Insurance Company agrees to provide management services
to N. P. Premium Finance Company, including management and supervision of
the staff of N. P. Premium Finance Company. These services include
financial management and corporate legal activity. N. P. Premium Finance
Company agrees to pay North Pointe Insurance Company $6,440 per month, the
last day of the month, in exchange for the management services so rendered.

      North Pointe Insurance Company shall continue to provide supplies,
telephone service and postage service to N. P. Premium Finance Company. N.
P. Premium Finance Company agrees to pay North Pointe Insurance Company
$1,125 at each month end for these services and supplies.(1)

      This agreement may be terminated effective the first day of the first
month next following 30 days written notice of cancellation of said agreement.

<TABLE>
<S>                       <C>
(1)      Postage          $   600
         Phone                500
         Supplies              25
                          -------
                          $ 1,125
</TABLE>

            Executed this 5th day of March, 2004.

NORTH POINTE INSURANCE COMPANY                   N. P. PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY

By: /s/ B. Matthew Petcoff                       By: /s/ John H. Berry
    -----------------------------------              -------------------------
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending October 15, 2005

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                    | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NEW TRIPOLI BK, NEW TRIPOLI, PENNSYLVANIA | 331713 | 05/02/2005 | 10/05/2005     | S         | Small Bank 

## 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
# C_2013164EN.01001701.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/17

---

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)

(Case T-474/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Annulment of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 164/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Las Condes, Santiago, Chili)

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 22 June 2011 (Case R 637/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG and Viñedos Emiliana, SA.

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. | The applicant and OHIM shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and OHIM shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2084]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

Date and Time: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Items to be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b) and title 26, 
U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-2084 Filed 4-24-07; 2:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M