alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 167.65-42 Verification of vessel compliance with applicable stability requirements. ( a ) After loading and prior to departure and at all other times necessary to assure the safety of the vessel, the master shall determine that the vessel complies with all applicable stability requirements in the vessel's trim and stability book, stability letter, Certificate of Inspection, and Load Line Certificate, as the case may be, and then enter an attestation statement of the verification in the log book. The vessel may not depart until it is in compliance with these requirements.
( b ) When determining compliance with applicable stability requirements the vessel's draft, trim, and stability must be determined as necessary and any stability calculations made in support of the determination must be retained on board the vessel for the duration of the voyage.
[CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41824, Sept. 11, 1992]
# C_2012065EN.01002403.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/24

---

Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-138/11)

2012/C 65/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the recalculated proposal of the PMO

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission decision of 11 May 2011 annulling and replacing the decision of 22 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission decision of 11 May 2011 annulling and replacing the decision of 22 October 2009;

| — | establish the validity of the agreement concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights on the basis of the offer accepted in accordance with the calculation of the decision of 22 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the validity of the agreement concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights on the basis of the offer accepted in accordance with the calculation of the decision of 22 October 2009;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2011, expressly dismissing the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2011, expressly dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

| — | in the alternative, acknowledge the damage suffered and grant the applicant the sum of EUR 6 207,71 by way of damages, plus interest for delay at two percentage points over the rate of the European Central Bank; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, acknowledge the damage suffered and grant the applicant the sum of EUR 6 207,71 by way of damages, plus interest for delay at two percentage points over the rate of the European Central Bank;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### Ed. Bowen v. The State.

*No. 6702.*

*Decided May 3.*

1. Information.—An indispensable requisite of an information is that it is made to appear upon its face that it was presented in a court of competent jurisdiction. Except by inference the information in this case does not appear to have been presented in any court. The State failing to amend the information in this respect, the court erred in overruling the defendant’s exception thereto.

2. Verdict.—If on a trial for aggravated assault the jury determines to convict for simple assault, they should so specify in their verdict.

Appeal from the County Court of Guadalupe. Tried below before Hon. James Greenwood, County Judge.

The information charged an aggravated assault and battery, and the verdict found the appellant *“*guilty,” and assessed his punishment at a fine of five dollars.

*W. R. Neal,*for appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

One of the statutory requisites of an information is *“*that it shall appear to have been presented in a court having jurisdiction of the offense set forth.” Code Crim. Proc., art. 430, subdiv. 2. It does not appear from the information in this case, except inferentially, in what court the same was presented, or that it was presented in any court. This requisite, like all others, must be made to appear by direct affirmative allegation. Thomas v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 213; Code Crim. Proc., art. 432.

This defect in the information having been pointed out by an exception should have been cured by amendment, or the exception should have been sustained. Other exceptions made to the information are not maintainable, because not supported by the record. It is charged in the information that both an assault and battery was committed by the defendant in the house of a private family.

We will not determine the question as to the sufficiency of the verdict further than to say that if it was the intention of the jury to find the defendant guilty of a simple assault only the verdict should have so specified.

Because of the defect in the information above stated, the judgment is reversed; but said defect being one of form and amendable, the prosecution will not be dismissed, but the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
# C_2013304EN.01001701.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission

(Case T-483/11) (1)

1

(Plant-protection products - Active substance flurprimidol - Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 304/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/328/EU of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sepro Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sepro Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 8, 2014

No. 04-14-00630-CV

Rowland J. MARTIN,

Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY, City of San Antonio, and San Antonio Independent School District,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-19099

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Additionally, the motion to 

extend time to pay the court filing fee is DENIED AS MOOT, and the corrected motion for 

extraordinary relief is DENIED. 

It is so ORDERED on October 8, 2014. 

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of October, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.109-4 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. FOR THE THREE
MONTHS  ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         678
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                22464
<ALLOWANCES>                                   234
<INVENTORY>                                   2356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             30936
<PP&E>                                       61083
<DEPRECIATION>                               11394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              134420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        28153
<BONDS>                                      86701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                   19566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                134420
<SALES>                                      35579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             35579
<CGS>                                        29315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                33883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (882)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (886)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (886)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (886)


</TABLE>
§ 169.543 Distribution and stowage. ( a ) Personal flotation devices must be distributed through the upper part of the vessel in protected places convenient to the persons on board.
( b ) If practicable, personal flotation device containers must be designed to allow the PFDs to float free.
( c ) Personal flotation devices for children, when provided, must be stowed separately.
( d ) Lockers, boxes, and closets in which PFDs are stowed must not be capable of being locked.
#### Mechanics and Traders’ National Bank *(Judgment Creditor), Respondent, v.*Hugh R. Healy *(Judgment Debtor), Appellant, Impleaded, et*c.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,378,535
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 16,014,879
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,960,774
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         4,470,405
<LOANS>                                     62,564,092
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (701,234)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,099,574
<DEPOSITS>                                  81,144,347
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            440,337
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,395,240
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,119,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              89,099,574
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,866,731
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,438,356
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                38,536
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,343,623
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,320,842
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,423,500
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,920,123
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  449,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,152
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,089,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                798,898
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     798,898
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (24,592)
<NET-INCOME>                                   505,137
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.88
<LOANS-NON>                                    145,074
<LOANS-PAST>                                    39,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               366,158
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  114,017
<RECOVERIES>                                        93
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              701,234
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           701,234
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135450(16) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135450 COA: 280560 Wayne CC: 06-005650-01 JARROD RASHAU N COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s March 24, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BIG GUY’S PINBALL, LLC, 

 Case No. 2:14-CV-14185-VAR-RSW 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

 U.S. District Judge, Presiding 

JIMMY LIPHAM, 

 Honorable R. STEVEN WHALEN 

 Defendant. Exec. U.S. Magistrate Judge, Referral 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

 The parties having so stipulated by their respective counsel, the Court hereby ORDERS 

that Defendant JIMMY LIPHAM shall have until and through January 9, 2015 to answer 

Plaintiff BGP’s complaint, or to otherwise move as permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P.12 or other 

applicable law. Defendant’s motion (CM/ECF#15) is rendered moot by this Order. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

Date: December 23, 2014 U.S. District Judge, Presiding 

STIPULATION

 Pursuant to E.D.Mich.L.R. 7.1(a)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A) the parties, by their 

respective counsel, stipulate to the content and form of this Order. 

Counsel or Plaintiff: Counsel or Defendant: 

ROBERT A. FARR, PLLC WILLIAMS HUGHES, PLLC 

By: s/ Robert Farr By: s/ Eric C. Grimm* 

Robert A. Farr (P61597) Eric C. Grimm (P58990) 

December 22, 2014 December 22, 2014 

* By Robert Farr (P61597) with Mr. Grimm’s permission for the purpose of electronically 

 submitting this Stipulation and proposed Order to the Court via the CM/ECF system. 

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 183
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BIG GUY’S PINBALL, LLC, 

 Case No. 2:14-CV-14185-VAR-RSW 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

 U.S. District Judge, Presiding 

JIMMY LIPHAM, 

 Honorable R. STEVEN WHALEN 

 Defendant. Exec. U.S. Magistrate Judge, Referral 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the attached Order Extending Time to Respond to the 

Complaint and this Certificate of Service were served on the attorneys of record by electronic 

means or U.S. Mail on December 22, 2014. 

 s/ Carol Pinegar 

 Case Manager 

 December 22, 2014 

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 184
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40705

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FERNANDO ALFREDO MORA, also known as Fernando Alfredo Mora 

Robledo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-17-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Alfredo Mora appeals from the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The district court imposed the lowest 

within-guidelines sentence, 33 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release.

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 9, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40705 Document: 00512762136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2014
No. 13-40705

Mora argues that the district court reversibly erred by failing to award 

him an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant 

to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). As we held recently in United States v. Villegas 

Palacios, __ F.3d __, No. 13-40153, 2014 WL 2119096, at *1 (5th Cir. May 21, 

2014), the amended version of § 3E1.1 is applicable in a case such as this one,

where the amendment was proposed at the time of sentencing and went into 

effect while the appeal was pending. Pursuant to the amended § 3E1.1, the 

Government may not withhold a § 3E1.1(b) motion because the defendant 

refuses to waive his right to appeal, as it did in this case. The Government has 

not shown that this error was harmless. See United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, Mora’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED 

to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

2

 Case: 13-40705 Document: 00512762136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2014
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Jeanne F. Isaacs, *Respondent, v.*Sollomon Isaacs, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed. - Opinion by

Brady, J.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.2.3

FORM NO. 7a                                               Registration No. 21558

                                     BERMUDA

                            CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT OF
                     MEMORANDUM OF INCREASE OF SHARE CAPITAL

        THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a Memorandum of Increase of Share Capital

                                       of

                        LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

was delivered to the Registrar of Companies on the 20TH of JUNE, 2003 in
accordance with section 45(3) of THE COMPANIES ACT 1981 ("the Act").

                                          Given under my hand and Seal of the
                                          REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES this
                                          24TH day of JUNE, 2003


                                          /s/ A. Buchan
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          for ACTING REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

<TABLE>
<S>                          <C>
Capital prior to increase:   US$   9,407,500.00

Amount of increase:          US$   5,000,000.00

Present Capital:             US$ 14,407,500.00
</TABLE>