alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
G-21 Penalty Rate Increase Sample
 

Notice of Changes to Your Interest Rates 

You have triggered the Penalty APR of 28.99%. This change will impact your account as follows: 

Transactions made on or after 4/2/12: As of 5/10/12, the Penalty APR will apply to these transactions. We may keep the 

APR at this level indefinitely. 

Transactions made before 4/2/12: Current rates will continue to apply to these transactions. However, if you become more 

than 30 days late on your account, the Penalty APR will apply to those transactions as well.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM P. JOHNSON, Deceased.

*Appeal*— *none lies from, an expa/rte order of a surrogate.*

Appeal from an *ex parte*order made by the surrogate of Otsego county vacating a former *ex parte*order giving the appellant twenty-five additional days to serve a case and exceptions.

The court at General Term said: *“*The surrogate granted an *ex pa/rte*order giving an executor, who was the appellant from a decree, twenty-five days additional time to serve a case and exceptions. Afterwards, on the application of Nthe respondent and on a new affidavit, the surrogate *ex parte*vacated the former order. From that last order this appeal is brought, so, at least, it is stated in the points on both sides, although we cannot identify the order appealed from as that which is mentioned in the notice of appeal.

“ It is the uniform rule that appeals do not lie from *ex parte*orders of the Special Term. The proper course is to move on notice to vacate an *ex parte*order. If the motion is refused an appeal may lie. But unless both parties have been heard by the *539court below -there is not such a decision between them as we should be ashed to review.

“We do not see why that same rule should not apply to this case. *Jlyslojj*v. *Powers*(9 Paige, 322) is not in point.”

*F. G. Finds,*for Mary JV Butler, appellant.

*Samuel A. Bowen,*for Emma J. Darrow, Allen Bloomfield and others, respondents.

*Samuel S. Fdidc,*for John D. Carey, respondent.

*Charles B. Olendorf,*for Julia A. Johnson, respondent. ■

*A. C. Tenncmt,*for Eloyd C. Shepard and others, respondents.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bockes, JJ.

Appeal dismissed, without costs to either party.
# C_2014045EN.01003002.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/30

---

Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

(Case T-634/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Appointment to post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ - Rejection of the appellant’s candidature - Appointment of another candidate - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and L. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission, seeking annulment of that judgment.

da Silva Tenreiro

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
§ 173.025 Additional intact stability standards: Counterballasted vessels. ( a ) Each vessel equipped to counterballast while lifting must be shown by design calculations to be able to withstand the sudden loss of the hook load, in each condition of loading and operation and at each combination of hook load and crane radius.
( b ) When doing the calculations required by this section, the hook load and counterballast heeling arms and vessel righting arms, as plotted on graph 173.025, must define areas that satisfy the following equation: Area II >Area I + K Where— (1) K = O for operation on protected waters and 7 foot-degrees (2.13 meter-degrees) for operation on partially protected and exposed waters. (2) Areas I and II are shown on graph 173.025.
( c ) Each heeling arm curve must be defined by—
HA = HAO cos (T) Where— HA = heeling arm. HAO = heeling arm at 0 degrees of heel. T = angle of heel.
Where— GZ(1) is the righting arm curve at the displacement corresponding to the vessel without hooking load. GZ(2) is the righting arm curve at the displacement corresponding to the vessel with hook load. HA(1) is the heeling arm curve due to the combined heeling moments of the hook load and the counterballast at the displacement with hook load. HA(2) is the heeling arm due to the counterballast at the displacement without hook load. Theta(c) is the angle of static equilibrium due to the combined hook load and counterballast heeling moments. Theta(f) is the downflooding angle on the counterballasted side of the vessel.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51045, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 945, Jan. 10, 1996]
§ 172.165 Intact stability calculations. ( a ) Design calculations must show that 2 inches (50mm) of positive metacentric height can be maintained by each tankship when it is being loaded and unloaded.
( b ) For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the effects of the addition of water ballast may be considered.
§ 131.525 Emergency lighting and power. ( a ) The master of each vessel shall ensure that the emergency lighting and power systems are tested at least once each week that the vessel is operated, to verify that they work.
( b ) The master shall ensure that emergency generators driven by internal-combustion engines run under load for at least 2 hours at least once each month that the vessel is operated.
( c ) The master shall ensure that storage batteries driving fitted systems for emergency lighting and power are tested at least once each 6 months that the vessel is operated, to demonstrate the ability of the batteries to supply the emergency loads for the period specified by Table 112.05-5(a) of this chapter for cargo vessels.
( d ) The date of each test and the condition and performance of the apparatus must be noted in the vessel's logbook.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.009-7 Contents of application. An application for approval of a material under this subpart must contain the following: ( a ) The trade name of the material.
( b ) The thickness or density, or both, of the material, or the range of thicknesses or densities, or both, of the material as manufactured.
( c ) The composition of the material.
( d ) The density and percentage of moisture and volatile matter of each component of the material.
( e ) The address of the factory manufacturing the material.
( f ) A sample representative of the material that is 305 mm long and 305 mm wide and that has a height equal to the largest thickness of the material as manufactured.
( g ) If the applicant intends to observe the test and measurements of the sample, a statement to that effect.
( h ) A commitment by the applicant to pay for the cost of the test and measurements when billed by the designated laboratory.
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent    to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements    Nos. 333-06199, 333-34019, 333-99311, and 333-128274 on    Form S-8, of our report dated March 13, 2007, relating    to the consolidated financial statements of Matrixx Initiatives,    Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the related    consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’    equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period    ended December 31, 2006, and management’s report on    the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,    included in the 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Matrixx    Initiatives, Inc. /s/  Mayer    Hoffman McCann, P.C.    MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.     Phoenix, Arizona    March 13, 2007
#### CHARLES HARRIS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. BRIANT’S GARAGE, INCORPORAED, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before Justices Black, Campbell and Case.

Eor the rule, *Carey & Lane.*

*Contra, Harold A. Price.*

*499Peb Curiam.

The plaintiffs have verdicts as follows: Charles Harris, $120; William Sexton, $1,150, and John Sexton, $20.

Several reasons are urged why these verdicts should be set aside, namely:

1. They are against the weight of the evidence.

2. As to those of Charles Harris and William Sexton they are excessive.

3. There is no evidence upon which the verdicts, as against Briant’s Garage, Incorporated, can be based.

4. Errors in the charge of the trial court.

Our examination satisfies us that none of these grounds warrant a setting aside of the verdicts.

The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.
#### § 12.701 Credentials required for entry-level and miscellaneous ratings.

Every person employed or engaged on a vessel subject to 46 U.S.C. 8701, must produce an MMC or MMD with the appropriate endorsement to the master or person in charge (PIC), if appropriate, before signing shipping articles.
Exhibit 32.2

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

January 6, 2012

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

i.        that this annual  report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.       that information contained in the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations  of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 

 
|   |            | /s/ Bruce N. Warner          |   |
|--------|-----------------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner |
|   |            | Chief Financial Officer and  |
|   |            | Principal Accounting Officer |

 

9

----
# C_2014439EN.01002601.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2014 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission

(Case T-29/11) (1)

1

((Arbitration clause - Programme of Community action in the field of public health - Contract for the funding of a project - Action for annulment - Debit note - Contractual nature of the dispute - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility - Reclassification of the action - Eligible costs))

(2014/C 439/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Bogensberger and D. Calciu, and subsequently by W. Bogensberger and F. Moro, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of debit note No 3241011712, issued by the Commission on 4 November 2010, for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 55  377 ,62 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance in support of a project conducted under the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that Ms H’s staffing costs, amounting to EUR 56,76, her travel expenses, amounting to EUR 1  354,08, and the service costs amounting to EUR 351,82 incurred by Technische Universität Dresden in performing Contract No 203114 (SI2.377438) concerning the funding of the project ‘Collection of European Data on Lifestyle Health Determinants — Coordinating Party (LiS)’ conducted under the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) are eligible and, consequently, dismisses the European Commission’s claim regarding those amounts, set out in Debit Note No 3241011712 of 4 November 2010, as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Ms H’s staffing costs, amounting to EUR 56,76, her travel expenses, amounting to EUR 1  354,08, and the service costs amounting to EUR 351,82 incurred by Technische Universität Dresden in performing Contract No 203114 (SI2.377438) concerning the funding of the project ‘Collection of European Data on Lifestyle Health Determinants — Coordinating Party (LiS)’ conducted under the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) are eligible and, consequently, dismisses the European Commission’s claim regarding those amounts, set out in Debit Note No 3241011712 of 4 November 2010, as unfounded;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Technische Universität Dresden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Technische Universität Dresden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011

1

---
<PAGE>










EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


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

Date:  August 20, 2007                   By:      /S/ KELLY HANKINSON
                                                  -------------------
                                         Name:    Kelly Hankinson
                                         Title:   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Thinkpath Inc. and will be retained by Thinkpath Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 15.610 Master and mate (pilot) of uninspected towing vessels. ( a ) The requirements in this section apply to towing vessels, except for— ( 1 ) Towing vessels that are subject to subchapter M in accordance with § 136.105 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Towing vessels that are seagoing and 300 gross or more tons subject to the provisions of subchapter I of this chapter;
( 3 ) Towing vessels that are inspected under other subchapters of this chapter that may perform occasional towing; and
( 4 ) Towing vessels that are public vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101.
( b ) Except as provided in this paragraph, every towing vessel of at least 8 meters (26 feet) in length, measured from end to end over the deck (excluding sheer), must be under the direction and control of a person holding a license or MMC officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, or as master or mate of vessels of greater than 200 GRT, holding either an endorsement on his or her license or MMC for towing vessels or a completed Towing Officer Assessment Record (TOAR) signed by a designated examiner indicating that the officer is proficient in the operation of towing vessels. This requirement does not apply to any vessel engaged in assistance towing.
( c ) Any towing vessel operating in the pilotage waters of the Lower Mississippi River must be under the control of an officer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section who holds either a first-class pilot's endorsement for that route or MMC officer endorsement for the Western Rivers, or who meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and meets the requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section as applicable: ( 1 ) To operate a towing vessel with tank barges, or a tow of barges carrying hazardous materials regulated under subchapters N or O of this chapter, an officer in charge of the towing vessel must have completed 12 roundtrips over this route as an observer, with at least three of those trips during hours of darkness, and provide evidence to the Coast Guard that at least one of the 12 roundtrips was completed within the last 5 years.
( 2 ) To operate a towing vessel without barges, or a tow of uninspected barges, an officer in charge of the towing vessel must have completed at least four round trips over this route as an observer, with at least one of those trips during hours of darkness, and provide evidence to the Coast Guard that at least one of the four roundtrips was within the last 5 years.
[USCG-1999-6224, 66 FR 20944, Apr. 26, 2001, as amended at 68 FR 35818, June 17, 2003; USCG-2008-0906, 73 FR 56508, Sept. 29, 2008; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11261, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78004, Dec. 24, 2013; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014; USCG-2006-24412, 81 FR 40101, June 20, 2016]
# C_2012039EN.01000803.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

(Case C-567/11)

(2012/C 39/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gas Natural SDG, S.A.

Other parties: Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

---
# C_2014102EN.01003201.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — LG Display and LG Display Taiwan v Commission

(Case T-128/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Agreements and concerted practices concerning prices and production capacity - Internal sales - Rights of the defence - Fines - Partial immunity from fines - Single and continuous infringement - Ne bis in idem principle))

2014/C 102/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: LG Display Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea); and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd, (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers),

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by S. Kingston BL)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays), and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets at EUR 210 000 000 the fine imposed jointly and severally on LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets at EUR 210 000 000 the fine imposed jointly and severally on LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders LG Display and LG Display Taiwan to bear their own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders LG Display and LG Display Taiwan to bear their own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
§ 167.01-10 Effective date of regulations. ( a ) The regulations in this part shall be in effect on and after July 1, 1951: *Provided,* That amendments, revisions, or additions shall become effective 90 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register unless the Commandant shall fix a different time.
( b ) Amendments to regulations in this part will not be retroactive in effect unless specifically made so at the time the amendments are issued.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BIG GUY’S PINBALL, LLC 

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

 Plaintiff, 

 Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

v. U.S. District Judge, Presiding 

 

JIMMY LIPHAM, Honorable R. STEVEN WHALEN 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge, Referral 

 Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this matter is 

dismissed with prejudice and without an award by this Court of costs, attorney’s fees, and/or 

other remedies not already covered by the parties’ settlement agreement. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

Date: December 22, 2015 U.S. District Judge, Presiding 

STIPULATION

 The parties, by their counsel of record, stipulate to the content and form of this order, and 

to its entry by the Court. 

Counsel for Plaintiff BGP, LLC: Counsel for Defendant Mr. Jimmy Lipham: 

Robert A. Farr, PLLC Eric C. Grimm, PLLC 

By: s/ Robert Farr (P61597) By: s/ Eric C. Grimm (P58990) * 

December 8, 2015 December 8, 2015 

* By Robert Farr (P61597) pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement and with Mr. 

Grimm’s permission for the limited purpose of submitting this proposal via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system. 

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 54 Filed 12/22/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 875