alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 169.684 Overcurrent protection for motors and motor branch circuits. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each motor must be provided with running protection against overcurrent. A protective device integral with the motor that is responsive to motor current or to both motor current and temperature may be used.
( b ) The motor branch circuit conductors, the motor control apparatus, and the motors must be protected against overcurrent due to short circuits or grounds with overcurrent devices.
( c ) The motor branch circuit overcurrent device must be capable of carrying the starting current of the motor.
( d ) Each manually started continuous duty motor, rated at one horsepower or less, that is within sight from the starter location, is considered as protected against overcurrent by the overcurrent device protecting the conductors of the branch circuit.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58287, Sept. 29, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7557

KENNETH RAY JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-197-2) Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004 Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ray Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 337- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 190.07-90 Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968. ( a ) Existing structure arrangements and materials previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to the same standards as the original construction.
( b ) Conversions, major alterations, new installations, and replacements shall comply with the applicable specifications and requirements in this subpart for new vessels.
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
        (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

    Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of GWL&A Financial Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:      May 11, 2004   /s/William T. McCallum
                           ----------------------
                           William T. McCallum
                           President and Chief Executive Officer



Dated:      May 11, 2004   /s/Mitchell T.G. Graye
                           ----------------------
                           Mitchell T.G. Graye
                           Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.105-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of deck assemblies (A-60) for SOLAS vessels as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Robert S. Herlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Natural Gas Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")") pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 14th day of January, 2004.

| | /s/ROBERT S. HERLINRobert S. Herlin Chief Executive
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
# C_2011139EN.01002302.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/23

---

Action brought on 10 March 2011 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (Pelikan)

(Case T-136/11)

2011/C 139/44

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: pelicantravel.com (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Chlipala, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2010 in Case R 1428/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2010 in Case R 1428/2009-2;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: figurative trade mark “Pelikan” for services in Classes 35 and 39 (Community trade mark no 3 325 941).

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant was acting in bad faith when filing the application for the trade mark [Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)].

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

1

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, inasmuch as OHIM incorrectly assessed the facts, evidence and law, and thereby came to the incorrect conclusion that the trade mark in question was not lodged in bad faith.

Pleas in law:

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
#### § 111.91-1 Power, control, and interlock circuits.

Each electric power, control, and interlock circuit of an elevator or dumbwaiter must meet ASME A17.1 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 110.10-1).

[USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65199, Oct. 31, 2008]
§ 115.615 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 § 115.600(b) or (c) of this part.
( 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 condition of the vessel, including the anticipated draft of the vessel at the time of survey;
( 6 ) A description of the hull protection system; and
( 7 ) The name and qualifications of any third party examiner.
( c ) If your vessel is 15 years old or older, the cognizant 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)(7) 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 this drydock examination required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the OCMI 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 District Commander for cognizant review.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21080, Apr. 29, 2002]
# C_2013079EN.01001701.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)

(Case T-426/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision of the Board of Appeal remitting the case to the Examination Division - Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Relevant public)

2013/C 79/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (Saint-Hélier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1294/2010-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JAMIEL VAUGHN, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-10907

STEVEN TOWNSEND, 

Defendant.

/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 1, 2016, the parties appeared for a settlement conference and

successfully arrived at a mutually agreeable resolution to this matter. The court expects

that the terms of their resolution will be memorialized in writing forthwith. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED without

prejudice to the right of either party to move by April 3, 2016, to vacate this order if the

settlement is not finalized. After April 3, 2016, this dismissal is with prejudice.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 4, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, February 4, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\15-10907.VAUGHN.Settlement.Conditional.Dismissal.chd.wpd

2:15-cv-10907-RHC-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 02/04/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 73
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.163-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Portable foam applicators designed, constructed, tested, and marked in accordance with UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.163-1) are eligible for approval under the provisions of this chapter.
( b ) A follow-up program must be established and maintained to ensure that no unauthorized changes have been made to the design or manufacture of type approved portable foam applicators. Acceptable follow-up programs include factory inspection programs administered by the accepted independent laboratory that performed the initial inspections and tests relied on by the type approval holder, or special configuration control programs implemented through a quality control flow chart and core procedures administered by the manufacturer and certified by an international standards agency such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
( c ) Applicants seeking type approval of portable foam applicators must submit: ( 1 ) A cover letter requesting type approval of the equipment;
( 2 ) A test report from the accepted independent laboratory showing compliance of the portable foam applicator with UL 162;
( 3 ) A copy of the contract for a follow-up program with the accepted independent laboratory; and
( 4 ) Documentation of the portable foam applicator, including an exterior drawing, assembly drawing, components list, and bill of material.
( d ) All documentation must either be mailed to Commandant (CG-ENG-4), United States Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509 or electronically submitted to *typeapproval@uscg.mil*.
( e ) Upon evaluation of the submittal package and approval by the Commandant, a Coast Guard Certificate of Approval will be issued valid for 5 years so long as the follow-up program for the portable foam applicators is maintained.
( f ) Upon application, a Certificate of Approval for a portable foam applicator may be renewed for successive 5-year periods without further testing so long as no changes have been made to the products, the follow-up program has been maintained, and no substitutions of or changes to the standards listed in § 162.027-2 have been made.
# C_2011311EN.01004701.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/47

---

Action brought on 2 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-79/11)

2011/C 311/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered because of the failure to take measures to implement the judgment in Case F-128/07.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity suffered because of the failure to take implementing measures in relation to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity suffered because of the failure to take implementing measures in relation to him;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect to the non-material damage suffered through the complete failure by the Commission to notify him of how the Commission intended to give effect to the judgment of annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect to the non-material damage suffered through the complete failure by the Commission to notify him of how the Commission intended to give effect to the judgment of annulment;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2016048EN.01003301.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission

(Case T-39/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA (Sandweiler, Luxembourg) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and G. Goeteyn, Solicitor, and subsequently by G. Goeteyn and T. Soames, Solicitors, C. Rawnsley, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and by O. Jones and subsequently by S. Love, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cargolux Airlines International SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cargolux Airlines International SA;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cargolux Airlines International. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cargolux Airlines International.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

1

---
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on Freedom's Defense 

Fund (FDF) (A09-21) 

Agenda Document No. 11-22 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission 

open meeting on May 05,2011, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to adopt Agenda Document No. 11 -22. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

~yKk%^/i (kmk)uifi/iiu/ui:Ai

( ) £)ate Shawn Woodhead Werth / 

Secretary and Clerk ofthe Commission
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of TorreyPinesTherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Neil M. Kurtz, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

 1.      the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Neil M.  Kurtz, M.D.               |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Neil M. Kurtz,  M.D.                   |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

May 13, 2008

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

“This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q towhich it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theregistrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.”

 

----