alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.144-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Manufacturers that desire type approval should submit a written notice to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) describing the product and its intended uses. The Commandant will evaluate this information and notify the manufacturer of the product's suitability for testing. The manufacturer should then contract directly with an accepted independent laboratory to perform the required tests and inspections.
( b ) Upon completion of the required testing and inspections, the manufacturer must submit either a written request for type approval to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), United States Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, or electronically submit a request to *typeapproval@uscg.mil*. The request must indicate the name and address of the manufacturer, all product designations, and the address of all manufacturing facilities. The request must include a copy of the final fire test report and the production inspection procedures. From the information submitted, the Commandant determines whether or not the product is acceptable for type approval. If the product is determined to be acceptable, a type approval certificate valid for a 5-year period will be issued. If the product is not accepted, the manufacturer will be notified of the reasons why.
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Zhongchai Machinery, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Peter Wang, the
President and acting Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 C.F.R.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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.




Date:  December
9, 2010





By:
              /s/
      Peter WangPresident





This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
C.F.R. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Act 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Zhongchai Machinery, Inc. and will be retained by Zhongchai
Machinery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20554 Summary Calendar

THOMAS CHARLES BORUCH Petitioner-Appellant

v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CV-1879
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Charles Boruch, Texas prisoner # 1333487, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure toexhaust remedies, pursuant to § 2254(b) and (c). To obtain a COA, Boruch must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” which in turn requires him to show “thatjurists ofreason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim ofthe denial of United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 30, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkO R D E R No. 07-20554

2 a constitutional right and thatjurists ofreason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Boruch contends that reasonable jurists would find the dismissal of his habeas petition for failure to exhaust to be error because it was based on the incorrect factual finding that he did not first pursue a state habeas application. He argues that he demonstrated through his postjudgment motion that he filed
a state habeas application which was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appealswithoutwritten reasonson April 18, 2007. Additionally, he asserts that he is entitled to a COA because his § 2254 petition states a valid claim for ineffective assistance. Boruch is correct that the record establishes that he had previously filed
an unsuccessful state habeas application and that he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing the instant § 2254 petition. He is also correct that his petition raises facial ly valid ineffective-assistance claims. Boruch has thus made the required showing, and his motion for a COA is granted. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. The district court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is noted that the petition appears on its face to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). However, Boruch should be given the opportunity to raise tolling arguments before the district court. COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
First Amendment to Restricted Stock Award Agreement with Edward C. Nafus



 Exhibit 10.59A 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 
  
 This First Amendment to Restricted Stock Award Agreement is entered into this
11 day of January, 2005, between CSG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and EDWARD C. NAFUS (“Grantee”). 
  

* * * 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Grantee entered into a Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated August 30, 2002 (the “RSA Agreement”) with respect to
60,416 shares of the Common Stock of the Company; and 
  
 WHEREAS,
the Company and the Grantee desire to amend the RSA Agreement as herein set forth; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the agreement of the parties contained in this document, the Company and the Grantee agree as follows: 
  
 1. Section 2(c) of the RSA Agreement hereby is amended in its entirety so as
to read as follows: 
  
 “(c) Notwithstanding
the provisions of Section 2(a), any Shares which have not previously vested in Grantee pursuant to Section 2(a) automatically shall vest in Grantee upon an involuntary Termination of Employment of Grantee without Cause.” 
  
 2. As amended by this First Amendment thereto, the RSA Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
  
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Grantee have executed this First Amendment to Restricted Stock Award Agreement as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	 CSG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

	 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Neal C. Hansen


	 	 	 Neal C. Hansen, Chairman of the Board and

	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer

		
	 	 	 /s/ Edward Nafus


	 	 	 Edward Nafus
#### § 167.45-71 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76706, Sept. 18, 2024.
# Senate Floor Activity - Monday, March 10, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Monday, March 10)

S. 1086

S. 1917

 62

## Executive Business (Monday, March 10)

PN1181

 61

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 22 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 

Received 

OCTOBER 15, 2009 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to reduce the amount 

that the United States Postal Service is required to 

pay into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund 

by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 22 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Postal 

3 Service Financial Relief Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FOR POSTAL ANNU5 ITANTS’ HEALTH BENEFITS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (iii) of section 

7 8909a(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 

8 to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(iii) $1,400,000,000, not later than September 

10 30, 2009;’’. 

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

12 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact13 ment of section 803(a)(1)(B) of the Postal Accountability 

14 and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109–435; 120 Stat. 

15 3251). 

16 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTION. 

17 The heading for section 8909a of title 5, United 

18 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘BENEFIT’’ and in19 serting ‘‘BENEFITS’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.9

         SECOND  AMENDMENT,  dated  as of  August  22,  1997,  to  that  certain
International  Distributorship  Agreement,  dated as of  January  22,  1997,  as
amended  (as so  amended,  the  "Distributorship  Agreement")  between  Arterial
Vascular  Engineering,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation ("AVE") and Japan Lifeline
Co., Ltd., a company organized under the laws of Japan (the "Distributor").

         WHEREAS,  AVE and the Distributor desire to amend certain provisions of
the Distributorship Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other valuable
consideration,  receipt  of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the  parties  hereto
hereby agree as follows:

         1.  Section  3.6 is hereby  amended by  deleting  the  amount  "*" and
substituting in lieu thereof the amount "*".

         2.  Schedule B is hereby  amended by adding a proviso to the end of the
sentence under the heading  "Coronary Stent Systems," which proviso shall be and
read as follows:

                  "; provided,  however,  that for the * period  beginning * and
                  ending *, Distributor shall purchase at least * coronary stent
                  systems".

         3. This  Amendment is limited as specified  and shall not  constitute a
modification, acceptance or waiver of any other provision of the Distributorship
Agreement.

         4.  From  and   after  the  date   hereof,   all   references   in  the
Distributorship   Agreement   shall  be   deemed   to  be   references   to  the
Distributorship Agreement as modified hereby.

         5. This  Amendment  shall be governed by, and  construed in  accordance
with,  the laws of the State of California  applicable to contracts  executed in
and to be performed in that State.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  AVE and the Distributor have caused this Amendment
to be duly  executed  as of the date  first  written  above by their  respective
officers thereunto duly authorized.

ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, INC.                     JAPAN LIFELINE CO., LTD.



By  /s/ Scott J. Solano                                 /s/ Takeshi Masumoto
  -------------------------------------                     ----------------
        Scott J. Solano                                     Takeshi Masumoto
  President and Chief Executive Officer                        President

---------------
*    Certain  confidential  information  contained in this  document,  marked by
     asterisks,  has been omitted and filed  separately  with the Securities and
     Exchange  Commission  pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act
     of 1934, as amended.
# C_2012319EN.01000803.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2012 — Duscholux Ibérica v OHIM — Duschprodukter i Skandinavien (duschy)

(Case T-295/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Application for the Community figurative mark duschy - Earlier Community figurative mark DUSCHO Harmony - Relative ground for refusal - Absence of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 319/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Duscholux Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonnel Callicó, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Duschprodukter i Skandinavien AB (Hisings Backa, Sweden) (represented initially by M. Jonson, and subsequently by A. Kyhlhammar, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2011 (Case R 662/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Duscholux Ibérica, SA and Duschprodukter i Skandinavien AB

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Duscholux Ibérica, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Duschprodukter i Skandinavien AB in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Duscholux Ibérica, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Duschprodukter i Skandinavien AB in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

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.

§ 160.062-2 Types. ( a ) The hydraulic releases referred to under § 160.062-1(a)(1) are of the diaphram-spring plunger type, which releases a buoyant load under hydrostatic pressure.
( b ) All hydraulic releases given an approval under this subpart shall be designed and tested to operate with spring-tensioned gripes. Such gripes shall be considered as a part of each approval.
( c ) Alternate designs will be given special consideration, but the expense of their preliminary investigation at a laboratory accepted by the Commandant shall be borne by the manufacturer.
[CGFR 68-32, 33 FR 5721, Apr. 12, 1968, as amended by CGD 73-153R, 40 FR 4422, Jan. 30, 1975]
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     In connection with the Annual Report of LoralSpace & Communications Ltd. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Bernard L. Schwartz,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ      *Bernard L. Schwartz* *Chief Executive Officer*
March 15, 2004
§ 159.005-11 Approval inspection or test report: Contents. ( a ) Each approval inspection or test report must contain the following: ( 1 ) The name of the manufacturer.
( 2 ) If the inspections or tests are performed or supervised by an independent laboratory, the name and address of the laboratory.
( 3 ) The trade name, product designation (such as model numbers), and a brief description of the equipment or material inspected or tested.
( 4 ) The time, date, and place of each approval inspection and test.
( 5 ) The name and title of each person performing, supervising, and witnessing the approval inspections or tests.
( 6 ) The performance data for each test required in the applicable subpart, including a description of each failure.
( 7 ) A description or photographs of the procedures and apparatus used in the inspections or tests, or a reference to another document that contains an appropriate description or photographs.
( 8 ) At least one photograph that shows an overall view of the equipment or material submitted for approval and other photographs that show— ( i ) Design details; and
( ii ) Each occurrence of damage or deformation to the equipment or material that occurred during the approval tests.
( b ) Each inspection or test report must bear an attestation that the inspections or tests were conducted as required by the applicable subpart and that the report contains no known errors, omissions, or false statements. The attestation must be signed by: ( 1 ) The manufacturer or manufacturer's representative, if the inspection or tests are conducted by the manufacturer; or
( 2 ) The chief officer of the laboratory, or the chief officer's representative, if the inspection or tests were conducted by an independent laboratory.
Note:
A false representation on a report is a ground for suspension or withdrawal of approval of the equipment or material. A false representation is also punishable as a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KULJIT KAUR; JASMINE KAUR;

JASKARAN SINGH,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70734

Agency Nos. A055-719-419

 A055-719-420

 A055-719-421

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Kuljit Kaur and her children, natives and citizens of India, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their

FILED

JUL 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-70734

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion for a

continuance of removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Ahmed

v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for

review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ August 10,

2005, request for a further continuance because both the BIA and the IJ offered

reasoned bases for the denial, and petitioners did not establish that a further

continuance would benefit their pursuit of relief from removal. See Singh v. INS,

213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency abuses discretion when it acts

“arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted); see also Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (evaluating, among other

factors, the nature of evidence excluded as a result of the denial of the continuance,

the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct, and the reasoned bases of the

agency’s denial). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-70734
#### Harry B. Goldenstein, complainant, v. Marlboro Construction Company, Incorporated, et al., defendants.

[Decided March 2d, 1929.]

*Mr. Rudolph Hartman,*for the complainant.

*Messrs. Burlaw & Currie,*for the defendant Crouse.

Baches, Y. C.

Crouse, a subsequent judgment creditor, attacks the priority of the mortgage under foreslosure on the ground that the execution of the mortgage, given by a corporation, was not properly proved, was therefore improperly recorded, and, hence, was not constructive notice. The mortgage was recorded May 23d, 1927; the judgment was recovered March 19th, 1928. Crouse purchased the premises under execution of his judgment. The certificate of proof of the execution of the mortgage is irregular, but that it is insufficient need not be passed upon for it conclusively appears that the judgment creditor had actual notice. In the suit in which his judgment was recovered, on a mechanics’ lien claim, he made the complainant a party and in the complaint recited the mortgage. Our recording acts invalidate unrecorded, and, of course, improperly recorded mortgages only as to subsequent judgment creditors without actual notice of the mortgage. *Comp. Slat., pp. 1553, 3414; Brinton*v. *Scull, 55 N. J. Eq.*747; *Majewski*v. *Greenberg, 5 N. J. Adv. R. 566.*The priority of the mortgage is established. There will be a reference.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bobby Yazdani, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Saba Software, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely forpurposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date: January 13, 2006
#### § 188.10-21 Compressed gas.

This term includes any material or mixture having in the container an absolute pressure exceeding 40 p.s.i. at 70 °F.; or regardless of the pressure at 70 °F., having an absolute pressure exceeding 104 p.s.i. at 130 °F.; or any liquid flammable material having a vapor pressure exceeding 40 p.s.i. absolute at 100 °F. as determined by the Reid method covered by the American Society for Testing Materials Method of Test for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (D-323). Compressed gases are discussed in more detail in 49 CFR parts 171-179.

[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36026, Sept. 16, 1988]
#### § 108.623 General alarm bell switch.

Each general alarm bell switch must be marked “GENERAL ALARM” on a plate or other firm noncorrosive backing.