alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Deborah Ann Byington, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-10016 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. Judge Stephanie Dawkins 

Davis 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVIS’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [25] ON THE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20, 23] 

 This is a Social Security appeal. Before the Court is Magistrate 

Judge Davis’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 25) recommending the 

Court grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) and 

deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 23), issued March 

2, 2016. The parties were required to file specific written objections 

within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 

72.1(d). No objections were filed. Accordingly, and on review of the 

Report and Recommendation, 

5:15-cv-10016-JEL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 05/04/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1070
2 

 The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 25) is ADOPTED; 

 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED; 

 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 23) is DENIED; 

and 

 The findings of the Commissioner are REVERSED AND 

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Report and 

Recommendation.1 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 4, 2016 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 4, 2016. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

 

1The parties, by failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, 

have waived any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 

F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). 

5:15-cv-10016-JEL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 05/04/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1071
§ 136.235 Certificate of Inspection amendment. ( a ) An amended COI may be issued at any time by the cognizant OCMI. The amended COI replaces the original, but the expiration date remains the same as that of the original. An amended COI may be issued to authorize and record a change in the dimensions, gross tonnage, owner, managing operator, manning, persons permitted, route permitted, conditions of operations, or equipment of a towing vessel, from that specified in the current COI.
( b ) The owner or managing operator of the towing vessel must make a request for an amended COI to the cognizant OCMI any time there is a change in the character of the vessel or in its route, equipment, ownership, operation, or similar factors specified in its current COI. The OCMI may need to conduct an inspection before issuing an amended COI.
( c ) For those vessels selecting the TSMS option, the owner or managing operator of the towing vessel must provide to the OCMI objective evidence of compliance with the requirements in this subchapter prior to the issuance of an amended COI. The evidence must: ( 1 ) Be from a TPO and prepared in accordance with parts 138 and 139 of this subchapter; and
( 2 ) Consider the change in the character of a vessel or in its route, equipment, ownership, operation, or similar factors specified in the vessel's current COI.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-2558

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TRISTAN GREEN, 

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

M.D. Pa. No. 1-08-cr-00041-001

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 14, 2014

Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR. Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 16, 2014)

____________

OPINION

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Tristan Green appeals an order of the District Court revoking his supervised 

release following his convictions in a subsequent federal case. While on supervised 
2

release, Green was charged in September 2011 with one count of armed bank robbery 

and one count of use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

924(c)(1)(A), 2113(a), 2113(d), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Based on these charges, the United 

States Probation Office petitioned for revocation of Green’s supervised release.

Green was tried before a jury and convicted of both armed robbery and use of a 

firearm during a crime of violence. Consequently, the District Court revoked Green’s 

supervised release, sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment.

Green appealed the District Court’s order revoking his supervised release. In doing 

so, however, Green acknowledged that “the outcome of the instant appeal is wholly 

dependent upon the outcome of 13-2056.” Because we affirmed Green’s convictions in 

13-2056 on November 14, 2013, United States v. Green, 2013 WL 6017425, we will 

affirm the order of the District Court revoking Green’s supervised release in this case.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.174-5 Independent laboratory. ( a ) The approval and production tests and inspections in this subpart must be conducted by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 167.15-5 Authority of marine inspectors.

Marine inspectors may at any time lawfully inspect any nautical school ship.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.027-7 Pre-approval tests for alternate platform designs. ( a ) The tests in this section are for life float platforms that do not meet the requirements of either § 160.027-3(b) (1) or (2).
( b ) The float body must be supported so that the platform is suspended in the air by the net or equivalent supporting arrangement. The platform must be loaded evenly with a weight equal to 60 percent of the weight of the total number of persons for which the float is to be rated, assuming a weight of 75 kg (165 lb.) per person. The weight must be allowed to remain on the platform for ten minutes after which it is removed. The supporting arrangement and platform must not show any evidence of damage or permanent deformation as a result of this test.
( c ) The float body must be supported so that the platform is suspended in the air by the net or equivalent supporting arrangement. A bag of sand, shot or similar granular material weighing 90 kg (200 lb.) must be dropped onto the center of the platform from a height of 3 m (10 ft.). The supporting arrangement and platform must not show any damage that would affect the serviceability of the float or platform.
( d ) As part of the buoyancy test required in § 160.010-7(e) of this chapter, the platform must be loaded with weights equal to 1 ⁄ 2 the rated capacity of the float. There must be no damage to the supporting arrangement or platform as a result of this test.
Note:
Since the weights on the platform will be submerged during this test, allowance must be made for the displacement of the submerged weights. The weight required is calculated by the formula W = (18d)/(d-4895), where W is the required submerged weight per person (in kg) and d is the density of the material (in kg/m3). (In customary U.S. units, the formula is W = 40d)/(d-63) where W is in lb. and d is in lb./ft.3).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1831 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the special 

rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2009 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BLUMENAUER, 

Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. 

ETHERIDGE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. KIND, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. 

ROSKAM, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. BACHUS, 

Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. 

CARNAHAN, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. 

CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. COSTA, Mr. COURTNEY, Mrs. DAHLKEMPER, 

Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DENT, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

of Florida, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. 

ESHOO, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. GERLACH, Ms. 

GIFFORDS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HASTINGS of 

Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. 

ISRAEL, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KING of New 

York, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. 

LUMMIS, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. 

MARKEY of Colorado, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCNERNEY, 

Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of 

California, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. 

MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PAULSEN, Mr. PERRIELLO, 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. PRICE

of North Carolina, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. PAUL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. SALAZAR, 

Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SESTAK, Mr. SHULER, Mrs. TAUSCHER, 

Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. 

WOLF, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1831 IH

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified 

conservation contributions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Conservation Ease5 ment Incentive Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED 

7 CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS MADE PER8 MANENT. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

10 (1) INDIVIDUALS.—Subparagraph (E) of sec11 tion 170(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

12 (relating to contributions of qualified conservation 

13 contributions) is amended by striking clause (vi). 

14 (2) CORPORATIONS.—Subparagraph (B) of sec15 tion 170(b)(2) of such Code (relating to qualified 

16 conservation contributions) is amended by striking 

17 clause (iii). 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to contributions made in taxable 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1831 IH

1 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-821 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CULTURAL PROPERTY 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Rome December 18, 2008 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ITALY 

Cultural Property 

 Agreement signed at Rome December 18, 2008; 

 Entered into force August 21, 2009.
---

Basel II NPR Printable version(1,289 KB PDF)
  Federal Register PDF Text March 30, 2006


Draft Federal Register notice and supervisory reporting templates(513 KB PDF)


Press Release


Basel II Capital Accord  Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact us  Last update: November 5, 2008
§ 167.15-33 Underwater Survey in Lieu of Drydocking (UWILD). ( a ) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), may approve an underwater survey instead of a drydock examination at alternating intervals if your vessel is— ( 1 ) Less than 15 years of age;
( 2 ) A steel or aluminum hulled vessel;
( 3 ) Fitted with an effective hull protection system; and
( 4 ) Described in 46 CFR 167.15-30(a)(1) or (2).
( b ) For vessels less than 15 years of age, you must submit an application for an underwater survey to the OCMI at least 90 days before your vessel's next required drydock examination. The application must include— ( 1 ) The procedure for carrying out the underwater survey;
( 2 ) The time and place of the underwater survey;
( 3 ) The method used to accurately determine the diver's or remotely operated vehicle's (ROV) location relative to the hull;
( 4 ) The means for examining all through-hull fittings and appurtenances;
( 5 ) The means for taking shaft bearing clearances;
( 6 ) The condition of the vessel, including the anticipated draft of the vessel at the time of survey;
( 7 ) A description of the hull protection system; and
( 8 ) The name and qualifications of any third party examiner.
( c ) If your vessel is 15 years old or older, the District Commander, may approve an underwater survey instead of a drydock examination at alternating intervals. You must submit an application for an underwater survey to the OCMI at least 90 days before your vessel's next required drydock examination. You may be allowed this option if— ( 1 ) The vessel is qualified under paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this section;
( 2 ) Your application includes the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8) of this section; and
( 3 ) During the vessel's drydock examination, preceding the underwater survey, a complete set of hull gaugings was taken and they indicated that the vessel was free from appreciable hull deterioration.
( d ) After the drydock examination required in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection submits a recommendation for future underwater surveys, the results of the hull gauging, and the results of the Coast Guards' drydock examination results to the cognizant District Commander for review.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21083, Apr. 29, 2002]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5

<LEGEND>
                             A.M.S. MARKETING, INC.
                          (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              208
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1000
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1208
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             15000
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                           4588
<OTHER-SE>                                      (18380)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1208
<SALES>                                            2254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2254
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  18809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (16555)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (16555)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (16555)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0



</TABLE>
#### Watson C. Squire and Peter Bowe, *Sheriff, etc., Appellants, v.*Henry Villard, *Respondent*.

Order modified as directed, and affirmed'as modified, without costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
§ 168.01-1 Purpose of regulations. ( a ) The purpose of the regulations in this part is to set forth uniform minimum requirements for vessels, whether being navigated or not, which are used by or in connection with any civilian nautical school, except vessels of the Navy or Coast Guard.
#### § 127.410 Safety-glazing materials.

Glass and other glazing material used in windows must be material that will not break into dangerous fragments if fractured.
IB 

House Calendar No. 102 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2053 

[Report No. 111–241] 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue 

in El Paso, Texas, as the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Mr. REYES (for himself, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. EDWARDS of Texas, 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. GONZALEZ, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of 

Texas, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. 

HALL of Texas, and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

JULY 31, 2009 

Additional sponsors: Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. CARTER, and Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO

JULY 31, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 525 

Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, as the ‘‘Albert 

Armendariz, Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2053 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 525 

5 Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

11 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

12 to be a reference to the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United 

13 States Courthouse’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

House Calendar No. 102 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2053 

[Report No. 111–241] 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

Courthouse’’. the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States at 525 Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, as 

JULY 31, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### QUAGLINO *v.*BENEDETTO.

‘The uneontradicted evidence demanded the verdict rendered in the justice’s court, and therefore it was not. erroneous to overrule the petition for certiorari complaining of the rendition of the verdict.

Submitted July 19,—

Decided November 9, 1906.

Certiorari. Before Judge Eelton. Bibb superior court. January 3, 1906.

*John R. Cooper,*for plaintiff.

*Nottingham & McClellan,*for defendant.

*630Cobb, P. J.

Quaglino sued Benedetto in a justice’s court for services as a laborer. The justice rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff entered an appeal to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff assigns error upon a judgment of the superior court overruling his petition for certiorari. It appears, from the answer of the justice, that the defendant was the proprietor of a fruit stand, that the plaintiff applied to him for work, and that the parties agreed to form a partnership and divide the profits of the fruit stand. The plaintiff testified that he became dissatisfied with the arrangement, and decided to work as a laborer for the defendant at $1.50 per day; and the amount sued for had been earned at this rate. He, however, stated that he had never informed the defendant of this arrangement, which he had made in his own mind. The defendant ' denied that he had ever employed, the plaintiff as a laborer, but admitted that a partnership had been entered into between them, and testified that the profits amounted to only fifty-three cents, and "that he had paid the plaintiff $10 in cash and goods. Numerous errors were assigned in the petition for certiorari. The answer failed to verify many of these, if not all. The uncontradicted evidence demanded a finding that there had been no contract for services as a laborer entered into between the parties; and it was, therefore, not erroneous for the judge to overrule the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 119.430 Engine exhaust pipe installation. ( a ) The design of all exhaust systems must ensure minimum risk of injury to personnel. Protection must be provided in compliance with § 116.970 of this chapter at such locations where persons or equipment might come in contact with an exhaust pipe.
( b ) Exhaust gas must not leak from the piping or any connections. The piping must be properly supported by noncombustible hangers or blocks.
( c ) The exhaust piping must be so arranged as to prevent backflow of water from reaching engine exhaust ports under normal conditions.
( d ) Pipes used for wet exhaust lines must be at least Schedule 80 or corrosion resistant material and adequately protected from mechanical damage.
( e ) Where flexibility is necessary, a section of flexible metallic hose may be used. Nonmetallic hose may be used for wet exhaust systems provided it is especially adapted to resist the action of oil, acid, and heat, and has a wall thickness sufficient to prevent collapsing or panting, and is double clamped where practicable.
( f ) Where an exhaust pipe passes through a watertight bulkhead, the watertight integrity of the bulkhead must be maintained. Noncombustible packing must be used in bulkhead penetration glands for dry exhaust systems. A wet exhaust pipe may be welded to a steel or equivalent bulkhead in way of a penetration if suitable arrangements are provided to relieve the stresses resulting from the expansion of the exhaust piping.
( g ) A dry exhaust pipe must: ( 1 ) If it passes through a combustible bulkhead or partition, be kept clear of, and suitably insulated or shielded from, combustible material.
( 2 ) Be provided with noncombustible hangers and blocks for support.
( h ) An exhaust pipe discharge terminating in a transom must be located as far outboard as practicable so that exhaust gases cannot reenter the vessel.
( i ) Arrangements must be made to provide access to allow complete inspection of the exhaust piping throughout its length.
( j ) An exhaust installation subject to pressures in excess of 105 kPa (15 psig) or having exhaust pipes passing through living or working spaces must meet the material requirements of part 56 of subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter.
( k ) Engine exhaust installations built in accordance with the requirements of ABYC P-1 will be considered as meeting the requirements of this section.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 922, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997]