alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 19 April 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:                     *http://www.cfa.gov*. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated in Washington, DC, 4 April 2007.

Thomas Luebke,

Secretary

[FR Doc. 07-1772  Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
§ 127.260 Ventilation for accommodations. ( a ) Each accommodation space must be adequately ventilated in a manner suitable for the purpose of the space.
( b ) Each vessel of 100 or more gross tons must be provided with a mechanical ventilation system unless the cognizant OCMI is satisfied that a natural system, such as opening windows, portholes, or doors, will accomplish adequate ventilation in ordinary weather.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2

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 May 21,
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:  May 21, 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION (ECF # 209) FOR ORDER REQUIRING 

LEROY SOLES TO MEET WITH GOVERNMENT COUNSEL AND 

CONFIRMING THAT, SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER 

(ECF #196), HE MAY DO SO VOLUNTARILY 

 In an order dated August 9, 2017, the Court ruled that Defendant Curtis Scott 

has waived his attorney-client privilege with respect to a number of specificallyidentified issues (the “Identified Issues”). (See ECF #916.) The waiver resulted 

from Scott’s desire to pursue a claim that his former attorney, Leroy Soles, provided 

ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the Identified Issues. In light of 

the Court’s order, the attorney-client privilege that once existed between Scott and 

Soles poses no bar to Soles voluntarily meeting with the Government and (1) 

discussing with the Government matters (including, but not limited to attorney-client 

communications) reasonably related to the Identified Issues and (2) sharing with the 
Government documents (including but not limited to written attorney-client 

communications) reasonably related to the Identified Issues. 

 The Government has now filed a motion for entry of an order compelling 

Soles to meet with the Government to discuss matters related to the Identified Issues 

and to produce documents related to the Identified Issues. That motion is DENIED. 

The Court is not persuaded that it has the authority to compel Soles to meet and 

produce documents in advance of the scheduled evidentiary hearing. While the 

Court has the authority to compel Soles’ attendance at the hearing, to require him to 

answer appropriate questions at the hearing (including questions concerning the 

Identified Issues), and to produce documents at the hearing (including documents 

related to the Identified Issues), the Court does not believe that it has the authority 

to require Soles to do so in advance of the hearing. The Court stands ready to 

enforce any appropriate subpoena the Government may issue to Soles to compel his 

attendance and his production of documents at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 3, 2017 
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on October 3, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
# C_2012227EN.01002102.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/21

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

(Case T-395/11) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting - Decision awarding the contract taken by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro - No legal capacity to be a defendant - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 227/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (represented by: initially N. Bertolini, acting as Agent, subsequently J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of the decision of the Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro of 21 March 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the public procurement procedure for the supply of equipment for the digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting and, by way of corollary claim, of the decision to award that contract to another undertaking and, in the alternative, for damages

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Elti d.o.o. shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Elti d.o.o. shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 212
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 213
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 214
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 215
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 216
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 217
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 218
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 219
# C_2011347EN.01004501.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/45

---

Action brought on 13 September 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX

(Case F-87/11)

2011/C 347/83

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 16 December 2010 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 16 December 2010 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX;

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

—

order the Agency to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.1730 Ethylene oxide: Loading and off loading. ( a ) The master shall ensure that before ethylene oxide is loaded into a cargo tank: ( 1 ) The tank is thoroughly clean, dry, and free of rust;
( 2 ) The hold spaces are inerted with an inert gas that meets § 154.1710(b)(1); and
( 3 ) The cargo tank vapor space is inerted with nitrogen.
( b ) Ethylene oxide must be off loaded by a deepwell pump or inert gas displacement.
( c ) Ethylene oxide must not be carried in deck tanks.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

QROVER SELLERS 

&rro”~n GENIRAI. 

~&UT letter'of October 

of this depaNnent. pmwnta the 

quoeat - 

-- . 

office1 
Hon. Oeorge ii. Cox - Page 2 

Article 1003 of said statutes provides: 

raon other than an elector reafdent of the 

be appointed to any office by the city cowail.” 

Article 2927 of eaid statutes prov,videe: 

*No person shall be eligible to any State, county, 

precinct or rmqicipal ofi%% in thie S,tate unlees he 

ahall be eligible to hold office under the Constitution 

of this State, and unlese he &all have rseidsd in this 

Stats for the period*of twelve months*and six months in 

the county, preofnet, or municipality, in which he offers 

himself aa a candidate, next preceding auy genafel or 

8 

u r tlsen of said county, precinet oz municipality for snore 

cial election, aad shall have.been au aotual bona fide 

than six munt.hsr 110 person iAel&ible to hold office shall 

ever have kio -6 placed upon the ballot at any germ-al 

or speciel eleation, or at 8ny prisary electSon where oandidates are selected under prlmry eleotion laws of thh State; 

and A0 6UO& %Mii&bb Candidate $httll 8Y6x be voNd UPOA 

now have votes oouated for him, at anyeueh gemral, epeo~al; 

or px-imary 61eotionr~ 

The qualifioatione for the office of 4.M health officer 

a pear to be preecrfbed by ganerel law, Article 1 

o L 

$0 3 

ar unamww .tana;ua.ge providea that A0 pereon 0 de 

sup?a,, in 

c tl-48~ 8n 

of the of ty &all. be appointed 

mWiz~ing, the 6krtUteS quoted 

to ulearly expreae the intent of the togi;tslntuxe 

quaLlfications of individuals &hey than those nilned in the Con&f-. 

tutioa to hold, any off&a of honor, truut OP euoltment provided b 

the lawa of the State, (tortinber~y va; State; 2S3 s. '8. 146,) Tie 

(ifflce of city health offher ia one of honor, truat and emolument . 

R 

rovided by the lawa Of the Ytate &nd 80 held LA our Opinion to you, 

o4 O-816 approved June 1, 1939. 

In amwer to your question ~y’ou are respectfully advised 

that to be elfg;ible for 8p lntment do the office of city health 

officer under the general !lLiI of thb State a physiclgn must be 

M elwtor having #aided in such reurlcipaXi~y inore tksn six months. 

Tow% very truly 

BY
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 164.137-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of windows as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
dtea_ex42.htm

 EXHIBIT 4.2 

DAVIDsTEA INC. 

AMENDMENT TO 2015 OMNIBUS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 
The first sentence of section 4(a) of the 2015 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan is amended so as to read as follows:
 
“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(e), the maximum number of shares of Stock that are available for issuance under Awards shall be 2,940,000 shares of Stock.” 
 
The foregoing amendment to the 2015 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of DAVIDsTEA Inc. at a meeting held on June 12, 2019 and ratified, confirmed and approved by the shareholders of DAVIDsTEA Inc. at an annual and special meeting of shareholders held on July 10, 2019.
# C_2012039EN.01001003.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres (France) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale

(Case C-603/11)

(2012/C 39/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hervé Fontaine

Defendant: Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale

Question referred

Do Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007 and which entered into force in France on 1 December 2009 — preclude national legislation such as that arising from Article L 112-1 of the French Code de la Mutualité (the Code governing mutual companies), in so far as the interpretation of that legislation would prohibit mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided, whereas such a restriction is not imposed on other companies also providing supplementary health insurance whether governed by the Code des Assurances (the Insurance Code) or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale (the Social Security Code)?

---
Attachment 4 

Presentation Slides 

Summary 

HOVENSA 
Summary HOVENSA

PEOPLE FUELING A BRIGHTER FUTURE

• HOVENSA refinery operation depends on use of residual fuel oil

• Fuel oil must be simultaneously fired with gas in the same heater

• NOx emissions levels even from best combination burner

technology affected by many factors

- Firebox temperature

- Air preheat

- Nitrogen content of fuel (typical .3 or .4% N in resid)

• Combination burners at HOVENSA cannot achieve emissions levels

for oil proposed due to these factors and short averaging period

proposed

• NOx emissions are not ratable in combination burners

- Not an issue for HOVENSA because only oil or gas is burned in

a given combination burner

• Gas with emergency oil can come close to proposed NOx levels on

gas, but cannot optimize oil gun for lower NOx from oil

- HOVENSA does not use this configuration

Friday April 17, 2009 1
Recommendations HOVENSA

PEOPLE FUELING A BRIGHTER FUTURE

• Cofired heater definition needs to reflect that heater is using gas and

oil simultaneously, not individual burners

• Create at least two cofired heater subcategories

- Air preheat

- Natural draft

• Could create an emergency backup standard, if needed by other

refiners

• Averaging time needs to be longer or emissions standard increases

• Emissions standard needs to account for typical nitrogen content in

residual fuels

• Emissions standard needs to account for operational variability and

limited data on Low NOx combination burners

Friday April 17,2009 2
BOT Emissions limits

• Air Preheat Cofired Heater

- Oil: .60 Ibs/MMBtu (HHV)

- Gas .15 Ibs/MMBtu (HHV)

• Natural Draft Cofired Heater

- Oil .40 Ibs/MMBtu (HHV)

- Gas .10 Ibs/MMBtu (HHV)

• Emergency

- TBD

HOVENSA

PEOPLE FUELING A BRIGHTER FUTURE

• Caveat: Burner spacing or firebox height limitations could make Low

NOx Combination burners unusable in some heaters

- Essential to retain case by case option

Friday April 17, 2009 3
§ 184.610 Public address systems. ( a ) Except as noted in paragraphs (d) and (e) below, each vessel must be equipped with a public address system.
( b ) On a vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length, the public address system must be a fixed installation and be audible during normal operating conditions throughout the accommodation spaces and all other spaces normally manned by crew members.
( c ) A vessel with more than one passenger deck and a vessel with overnight accommodations must have the public address system operable from the operating station.
( d ) On a vessel of not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length, a battery powered bullhorn may serve as the public address system if audible throughout the accommodation spaces of the vessel during normal operating conditions. The bullhorn's batteries are to be continually maintained at a fully charged level by use of a battery charger or other means acceptable to the cognizant OCMI.
( e ) On a vessel of not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length carrying not more than 49 passengers, a public address system is not required if a public announcement made from operating station without amplification can be heard throughout the accommodation spaces of the vessel during normal operating conditions, to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CRIM. CASE NO. 14-20779

Plaintiff,

v. PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DR. ARIA OMAR SABIT, l L E

Defendant. FEB

] 28 2019
.S. T COURT
ORDER EASTERN MICHIGAN

DENYING NOVEMBER 30, 2018 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER (DOC. #206) DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENAS (DOC. #203)
The Court concludes that, under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), there is no palpable defect
by which the Court and the Parties have been misled by its Order of November 16, 2018
(ECF #206), which also references its Order of October 10, 2018 (ECF #202).
The Court further concludes that no defect would result in a different disposition

of the case.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

RoR
CA? = PL
DATED: FEB 28 2019 CA ia,

PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SO ORDERED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form
10-Q") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Heather D. Brolick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
certify that to my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: May 15, 2008


                                        /s/ Heather D. Brolick
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Heather D. Brolick
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


                                      -31-
§ 111.05-33 Equipment safety grounding (bonding) conductors. ( a ) Each equipment-grounding conductor must be sized in accordance with Section 250.122 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
( b ) Each equipment-grounding conductor (other than a system-grounding conductor) of a cable must be permanently identified as a grounding conductor in accordance with the requirements of Section 250.119 of NFPA 70.
[USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65196, Oct. 31, 2008, as amended by USCG-2020-0072, 88 FR 16360, Mar. 16, 2023]
Opinions filed March 17, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

Nos. 11-11-00021-CR & 11-11-00022-CR

__________

LESLIE HEMPHILL, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 06-02012-CRF-272 & 06-05077-CRF-272

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In both causes, Leslie Hemphill was convicted in 2006 for the delivery of a controlled 

substance. On July 23, 2010, in trial court cause no. 06-02012-CRF-272, Hemphill filed a 

motion requesting additional credit for time that he spent in jail. The trial court entered an order 

in that cause on September 30, 2010, denying Hemphill’s motion. Hemphill subsequently filed a 

notice of appeal, containing both cause numbers, in which he is attempting to appeal from the 

“order signed by the trial court on 09/30/2010, denying defendant’s Motion Requesting 
2

Additional Time Credit.” The State has filed in each case a motion to dismiss for want of 

jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeals. 

After the clerk’s records were received by this court, we wrote Hemphill on February 14, 

2011, and informed him that it did not appear that we had jurisdiction in either case. We 

requested Hemphill to respond in writing by March 1, 2011, and show grounds to continue these 

appeals. Hemphill has not filed a response showing grounds to continue; he did contact the 

district clerk’s office and request that the September 30, 2010 order and the motion requesting 

additional jail credit be forwarded to this court. The clerk’s records that had been previously 

filed already contained those documents. The September 30, 2010 order from which Hemphill 

attempts to appeal is, however, not an appealable order. See Ex parte Forooghi, 185 S.W.3d 498 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Everett v. 

State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dismissed). Consequently, we have no 

jurisdiction to entertain these appeals.

The State’s motions to dismiss are granted, and the appeals are dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

March 17, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.