alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.027-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Firehose nozzles designed, constructed, tested, and marked in accordance with ASTM F 1546 or NFPA 1964 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.027-2) are considered to be approved under the provisions of this chapter.
( b ) Firehose nozzles designed, constructed, tested and marked in accordance with the provisions of this subpart in effect prior to June 24, 1996, are considered to be approved under the provisions of this chapter.
( c ) 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 firehose nozzles. 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).
( d ) Applicants seeking type approval of firehose nozzles 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 firehose nozzle with ASTM F 1546 or NFPA 1964;
( 3 ) A copy of the contract for a follow-up program with the accepted independent laboratory or evidence of an ISO 9001 certified special configuration control program or similar program implemented through a quality control flow chart and core procedure; and
( 4 ) Documentation of the firehose nozzle, including an exterior drawing, assembly drawing, components list, and bill of material.
( e ) All documentation must be either 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*.
( f ) 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 firehose nozzle is maintained.
( g ) Upon application, a Certificate of Approval for a firehose nozzle 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.
[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26009, May 23, 1996, as amended by USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67185, Dec. 1, 1999. Redesignated and amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48277, July 22, 2016]
# C_2012032EN.01004303.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 — Sabbag Afota v Council

(Case F-9/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Reports - Promotion - 2010 promotion exercise - No staff report)

2012/C 32/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Verónica Sabbag Afota (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action to annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action brought by Ms Sabbag Afota; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action brought by Ms Sabbag Afota;

| 2. | Orders Ms Sabbag Afota to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sabbag Afota to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 152 of 21.05.11, p. 33.

1

---
§ 169.257 Unsafe practices. ( a ) At each inspection for certification, periodic inspection, annual inspection, and at every other vessel inspection all observed unsafe practices and hazardous situations must be corrected.
( b ) At each inspection for certification, periodic inspection, annual inspection, and at every other vessel inspection the bilges and other spaces are examined to see that there is no accumulation of oil or other matter which might create a fire hazard.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6567

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY MORAN BOONE, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00167-RGD-FBS-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Moran Boone, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Moran Boone, III, appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for 

appointment of counsel, denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

§ 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration of the denial of compassionate release. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Boone’s motions. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 

(4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 

(U.S. Oct. 12, 2021).

*

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

United States v. Boone, No. 2:09-cr-00167-RGD-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2021; Apr. 1, 

2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Because Boone’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition in denying the motion for appointment of counsel, he has forfeited appellate 

review of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 

F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth 

Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Loral Space & Communications Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John Capogrossi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              |                                                  |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|              | /s/ JOHN CAPOGROSSI                                   |
|              | John Capogrossi                                       |
|              | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|              |                                                  |
| December 19, 2019 |                                                  |
§ 15.403 When credentials for ratings are required. ( a ) Every seaman referred to in this section, when required, must produce a valid MMC or MMD with all applicable rating endorsements for the position sought, a valid TWIC unless the mariner is exempt under 46 CFR 10.203(b)(2), and a valid medical certificate to the master of the vessel at the time of his or her employment before signing Articles of Agreement. Seamen who do not possess one of these credentials may be employed at a foreign port or place within the limitations specified in § 15.720 of this part.
( b ) ( 1 ) Every person below the grades of officer and staff officer employed on any U.S. flag merchant vessel of 100 GRT or more, except those navigating rivers exclusively and the smaller inland lakes, must possess a valid MMC or MMD, along with a valid medical certificate, with all appropriate endorsements for the positions served.
( 2 ) No endorsements are required of any person below the rank of officer employed on any barges except seagoing barges and barges to which 46 U.S.C. chapter 37 applies.
( 3 ) No endorsements are required of any person below the rank of officer employed on any sail vessel of less than 500 net tons while not carrying passengers for hire and while not operating outside the line dividing inland waters from the high seas. 33 U.S.C. 151.
( c ) Each person serving as an able seafarer-deck, or a rating forming part of a navigational watch (RFPNW), on a seagoing vessel of 500 GT or more must hold an STCW endorsement certifying him or her as qualified to perform the navigational function at the support level, in accordance with the STCW Convention (incorporated by reference, see § 15.103 of this part).
( d ) Each person serving as an able seafarer-engine, or a rating forming part of an engineering watch (RFPEW), on a seagoing vessel driven by main propulsion machinery of 1,000 HP/750 kW propulsion power or more must hold an STCW endorsement certifying him or her as qualified to perform the marine-engineering function at the support level, in accordance with the STCW Convention.
( e ) Notwithstanding any other rule in this part, no person subject to this part serving on any of the following vessels needs an STCW endorsement: ( 1 ) Vessels exempted from the application of the STCW Convention, including— ( i ) Fishing vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(11)(a);
( ii ) Fishing vessels used as fish-tender vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(11)(c);
( iii ) Barges as defined in 46 U.S.C. 102, including non-self-propelled mobile offshore-drilling units;
( iv ) Vessels operating exclusively on the Great Lakes; or
( v ) Pilot vessels engaged in pilotage duty.
( 2 ) Vessels not subject to any obligation under the STCW Convention due to their special operating conditions as small vessels engaged in domestic, near-coastal voyages, including— ( i ) Small passenger vessels subject to subchapter T or K of 46 CFR chapter I;
( ii ) Vessels of less than 200 GRT (other than passenger vessels subject to subchapter H of 46 CFR) chapter I; or
( iii ) Uninspected passenger vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(42)(B).
# C_2012013EN.01000203.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2011 — Cartiaux Service Plus SA v Belgian State

(Case C-432/11)

2012/C 13/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartiaux Service Plus SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

By order of 9 November 2011, the President of the Court ordered that the case be removed from the Register.

---
§ 119.445 Fill and sounding pipes for fuel tanks. ( a ) Fill pipes for fuel tanks must be not less than 40 millimeters (1.5 inches) nominal pipe size.
( b ) There must be a means of accurately determining the amount of fuel in each fuel tank either by sounding, through a separate sounding pipe or a fill pipe, or by an installed marine type fuel gauge.
( c ) Where sounding pipes are used, each opening must be at least as high as the opening of the fill pipe and they must be kept closed at all times except during sounding.
( d ) Fill pipes and sounding pipes must be so arranged that overflow of liquid or vapor cannot escape to the inside of the vessel.
( e ) Fill pipes and sounding pipes must run as directly as possible, preferably in a straight line, from the deck connection to the top of the tank. Such pipes must terminate on the weather deck and must be fitted with shutoff valves, watertight deck plates, or screw caps, suitably marked for identification. Diesel fill pipes and sounding pipes may terminate at the top of the tank.
( f ) Where a flexible fill pipe section is necessary, suitable flexible tubing or hose having high resistance to salt water, petroleum oils, heat and vibration, may be used. Such hose must overlap metallic pipe ends at least 1.5 times the pipe diameter and must be secured at each end by clamps. The flexible section must be accessible and as near the upper end of the fill pipe as practicable. When the flexible section is a nonconductor of electricity, the metallic sections of the fill pipe separated thereby must be joined by a conductor for protection against generation of a static charge when filling with fuel.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 922, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20556, May 7, 1996]
#### § 167.35-1 General.

Lifesaving appliances and arrangements on nautical school ships must be in accordance with the requirements for special purpose vessels in subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements) of this chapter.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25311, May 20, 1996]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PENNY RUMSEY, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-12700 

vs. HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

d/b/a LIGHTYEAR WIRELESS, a Georgia 

corporation, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [#2]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DIRECTING LOCAL COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE

OF APPEARANCE 

Plaintiff initiated the present action on July 9, 2014, alleging that Defendant has violated the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. On the same date as the action was

filed, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. Because Defendant has not yet been served

with the summons and copy of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s present motion is premature. Plaintiff may

re-file her present motion once she has effectuated proper service on Defendant. 

Additionally, the Court notes that a Notice of Appearance from local counsel has not been

filed with this Court. This Court requires strict compliance with E.D. Mich. L.R. 83.20(f), which

states that a party must obtain local counsel if the party is represented by counsel who is not a

member of the State Bar of Michigan. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 83.20(f). Local counsel must enter a

notice of appearance and attend all conferences and hearings in the case. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff

-1-

2:14-cv-12700-GAD-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 07/11/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 57
shall have local counsel file a Notice of Appearance forthwith, and he or she shall be obligated to

appear for all conferences and hearings in this matter. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification [#2] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2014 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

2:14-cv-12700-GAD-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 07/11/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 58
atec-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. 

2016 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective June 15, 2017)

This Fourth Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Alphatec Holdings, Inc. 2016 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective June 15, 2017 (the “Plan”), is made and adopted by Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), a corporation organized under the laws of State of Delaware. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 




“(a)  Subject to Paragraph 25, the number of Shares which may be issued from time to time pursuant to this Plan shall be 17,083,333 shares of Common Stock.”


	
 
	
2.
	
This Amendment is effective as of June 17, 2020. 





	
 
	
3.
	
This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein. The Plan, as amended by this Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed. 




* * * * * * * * 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company on April 22, 2020. 


			
	
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC.

	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Patrick S. Miles

	
Name:
	
 
	
Patrick S. Miles

	
Its:
	
 
	
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Publication Types

Trade Remedy
Trade remedy publications concern subsidies (countervailing duties), sales at less than fair value (antidumping) and import surges (safeguards).

----

Import Injury
Import Injury publications concern antidumping (AD), countervailing duty (CVD), reviews (five-year sunset) and global/bilateral safeguards.

----

General Factfinding
General Factfinding publications concern probable effect studies, industry assessments and negotiation background information.

----

Tariff
Tariff publications include the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and proposed modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

----

Other
Other publications are publications that fall outside of the above categories.

----

The following USITC Commission publications are available online.   Publications can be searched by keyword, by publication number, by title, by date, by subject, and by investigation or study type. Each column may be sorted by clicking on the column name below.

To view a publication, please click on its corresponding publication number. Unless specified, the documents listed below are provided in PDF format.

For more detail on available publication types, view **PUBLICATION TYPE INFORMATION**. For more enhanced searches, please visit **ADVANCED SEARCH**.

Displaying 1 - 50 of 5563

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-                Page            7 
-                Page            8 
-                Page            9 
-  … 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast » 

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.174-9 Construction. ( a ) *General.* Each thermal protective aid must be constructed primarily of a durable insulating or heat reflecting material that meets the thermal insulation requirements in § 160.174-11(a). Each aid must be designed to cover the wearer's entire body, except for the area of the mouth, nose, and eyes.
( b ) *Seams.* Stitching, if used in structural seams of a thermal protective aid, must be lock type stitching that meets the requirements in Federal Standard No. 751 for one of the following: ( 1 ) Class 300 lockstitch.
( 2 ) Class 700 single thread lock stitch.
( c ) *Seam strength.* Each seam must have a strength of at least 225 Newtons (50 lb.).
( d ) *Hardware.* All hardware of a thermal protective aid must be of a size and design that allows ease of operation by the wearer. The hardware must be attached to the aid in a manner that allows the wearer to operate it easily and that prevents it from attaining a position in which it can be operated improperly.
( e ) *Metal parts.* Each metal part of a thermal protective aid must be— ( 1 ) 410 stainless steel or have salt water and salt air corrosion characteristics equal to or superior to 410 stainless steel; and
( 2 ) Galvanically compatible with each other metal part in contact with it.
( f ) *Thermal protective aid exterior.* The primary color of the exterior surface of each thermal protective aid must be vivid reddish orange (color number 34 of National Bureau of Standards Publication 440). The exterior surface of the aid must resist tearing when tested as prescribed in § 160.174-17(i).
( g ) *Hand and arm construction.* The hand of each thermal protective aid must be a glove that allows sufficient dexterity for the wearer to close and open the zipper or other hardware of the aid and to open and eat survival rations, unless the glove is removable. The glove may not be removable unless it is attached to the arm and unless it can be secured to the arm or stowed in a pocket on the arm when not in use.
( h ) *Retroreflective material.* Each thermal protective aid must be fitted with at least 200 cm2 (31 sq. in.) of Type I retroreflective material that meets subpart 164.018 of this chapter.
( i ) *Size.* Each thermal protective aid must fit persons ranging in weight from 50 kg. (110 lbs.) to 150 kg. (330 lbs.) and in height from 1.5 m. (59 in.) to 1.9 m. (75 in.).
( j ) *Lifejacket.* Each thermal protective aid must be designed so that any Type I Personal Flotation Device meeting the requirements of this chapter can be worn inside the aid and, when worn, will not damage the aid and will not adversely affect its performance.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 13-CR-20892 

 HON: GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

v. 

D-14 KUTUB MESIWALA, M.D., 

 Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2, Defendant Kutub 

Mesiwala’s (“Defendant”) guilty plea to Count One of the Second Superseding 

Indictment, Defendant’s agreement to forfeiture in his Rule 11 Plea Agreement, the 

Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, and all 

information contained in the record, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Court shall GRANT and ENTER a 

money judgment against Defendant and in favor of the United States of America in 

the amount of $1,031,302.97. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the money judgment may be satisfied, to 

whatever extent possible, from any property owned or under the control of 

Defendant. To satisfy the money judgment, any assets that Defendant has now, or 

Case 2:13-cr-20892-GCS-RSW ECF No. 342, PageID.2043 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

may later acquire, may be forfeited as substitute assets under Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 853(p)(2). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.2, this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture shall become the Final Order 

of Forfeiture at the time of Defendant’s sentencing, shall be made part of the 

sentence and included in the Judgment, and shall not be the subject of ancillary 

proceedings given that the forfeiture consists entirely of a money judgment. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to 

enforce the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and to amend it as necessary, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2015 s/George Caram Steeh 

 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:13-cr-20892-GCS-RSW ECF No. 342, PageID.2044 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 2