alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 193.15-20 Carbon dioxide storage. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the cylinders shall be located outside the spaces protected, and shall not be located in any space that might be cut off or made inaccessible in the event of a fire in any of the spaces protected.
( b ) Systems of the type indicated in § 193.15-5(d), consisting of not more than 300 pounds of carbon dioxide, may have cylinders located within the space protected. If the cylinder stowage is within the space protected, the system shall be arranged in an approved manner to be automatically operated by a heat actuator within the space in addition to the regular remote and local controls.
( c ) The space containing the cylinders shall be properly ventilated and designed to preclude an anticipated ambient temperature in excess of 130 °F.
( d ) Cylinders shall be securely fastened and supported, and where necessary, protected against injury.
( e ) Cylinders shall be so mounted as to be readily accessible and capable of easy removal for recharging and inspection. Provisions shall be available for weighing the cylinders.
( f ) Where subject to moisture, cylinders shall be so installed as to provide a space of at least 2 inches between the flooring and the bottom of the cylinders.
( g ) Cylinders shall be mounted in an upright position or inclined not more than 30 degrees from the vertical. However, cylinders which are fitted with flexible or bent siphon tubes may be inclined not more than 80 degrees from the vertical.
( h ) Where check valves are not fitted on each independent cylinder discharge, plugs or caps shall be provided for closing outlets when cylinders are removed for inspection or refilling.
( i ) All cylinders used for storing carbon dioxide must be fabricated, tested, and marked in accordance with the requirements of §§ 147.60 and 147.65 of this chapter.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1145, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 84-044, 53 FR 7753, Mar. 10, 1988]
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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      Ben
      T. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; 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/
                BEN T. MORRISBen
                T. MorrisChief
                Executive Officer





November
      10, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris
      Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual plan [electronicresource].**
 
2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015| 2016 | 2017| 2018 | 2019
2020
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.1/6:
Item Number:0006-J (online)
CGP systemNumber:000728017
 
January 15, 2020
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# Time and Date:

1:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2007.

# Place:

Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Part 703 of NCUAs Rules and Regulations, Pilot Program Request. Closed pursuant to Exemption (4).

# For Further Information Contact:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 07-206 Filed 1-16-07; 1:44 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
#### Judah B. Voorhees, *as Collector, etc., of the Estate of*Pierre M. Van Wyck, *Deceased, Respondent, v.*Francis Xavier Huber, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal. Opinion by

Cullen, J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending March 25, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesBB&T Corporation, Winston Salem, North Carolina  -- to acquire Main Street Banks, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, and its subsidiary, Main Street Bank, Covington; and to acquire Main Street Bank's subsidiary, MSB Payroll Solutions, LLC, Alpharetta, and thereby engage in permissible data processing activities.					-Approved, March 24, 2006 					National City Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio  -- to acquire Forbes First Financial Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, and its subsidiary, Pioneer Bank and Trust Company, Maplewood.					-Approved, March 23, 2006 					

EnforcementFirst North American National Bank, Kenneshaw, Georgia  -- final decision and order of prohibition against Oyeacholem Moseri, a former employee.					-Approved, March 21, 2006 					

Regulations And PoliciesFair Credit Reporting Act  -- publication for comment of interagency advance notice of proposed rulemaking to develop guidelines and regulations on the responsibilities of those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, as required by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (Docket No. R-1250).					-Announced, March 22, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: March 30, 2006
Order entered May 31, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01437 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 0143 8 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 0143 9 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 014 40 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 014 41 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 014 42 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 014 43 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 014 44 - CR DANIEL BARRY STEFFEN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 199 - 83863 - 2017 . 199 - 83864 - 2017, 199 - 83865 - 2017, 199 - 8386 6 - 2017, 199 - 83867 - 2017, 199 - 83868 - 2017, 199 - 83869 - 2017 & 199 - 84131 - 2017 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s May 17, 2019 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT IN PART the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or be fore June 17, 2019

. If appellant’s brief is not filed by June 17, 2019 , these appeals may be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of the Estate of * From the County Court

Esther Abell Denton, deceased, of Midland County,

Trial Court No. P14779

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 1 94

- C V * January 26, 2023

* Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J., and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution . Therefore, in accordance with th is

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The cost s incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed against Douglas A. Denton.
Argued and submitted December 15, 1995,

reversed and remanded with instructions March 13, 1996

#### STATE OF OREGON ex rel Theodore R. KULONGOSKI, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, *Appellant, v.*Dennis CUNNING, CPA, *Respondent.*

(9405-03071; CA A85717)

912 P2d 958

Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Stephen E. Andersen waived appearance for respondent.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

*516DEITS, P. J.

*517DEITS, P. J.

Plaintiff, the Oregon Attorney General, issued an investigative demand, pursuant to ORS 646.618, to defendant, a certified public accountant. The demand relates to possible conduct by defendant, arising out of his professional activities, that allegedly violates the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). ORS 646.605 *et seq.*Pursuant to ORS 646.626, plaintiff filed a petition in the circuit court, seeking an order that defendant show cause why he should not comply with the demand. Defendant countered with a motion to quash the demand, pursuant to ORS 646.618(2), asserting that his professional activities were subject to regulation by the Board of Accountancy and, therefore, could not be the subject of a UTPA proceeding. The trial court denied plaintiff’s petition, granted defendant’s motion, and expressed agreement with defendant’s thesis that the matter was subject to the regulatory agency’s exclusive authority. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse.

 Plaintiff first argues that professionals who are subject to agency regulation are not immune from the UTPA for conduct performed in their professional dealings that violates the UTPA. Second, and more basically, plaintiff contends that the applicability of the UTPA to the conduct of the recipient of an investigative demand is not subject to judicial determination at the investigative stage or in considering a “motion to quash” under ORS 646.618(2).

Plaintiff’s first point is correct. *See State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Freeman,*131 Or App 336, 343-45, 884 P2d 878 (1994), *rev den*321 Or 137 (1995), and authorities there cited. So is his second. *Vendall Marketing Corp. v. Dept. of Justice,*318 Or 189, 863 P2d 1263 (1993).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to order defendant to comply with investigative demand.
# C_2013377EN.01001301.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline)

(Case T-666/11) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a bounding feline - Earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2013/C 377/29

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2011 (Case R 1137/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport and Danuta Budziewska.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Danuta Budziewska to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Danuta Budziewska to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

1

---
§ 169.555 Emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB). ( a ) Each vessel certificated for exposed waters must have an approved Class A emergency position indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB), and each vessel certificated for partially protected waters must have an approved Class C emergency position indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB). The required EPIRB must be— ( 1 ) Operational;
( 2 ) Stowed where it is readily accessible for testing and use; and
( 3 ) Stowed in a manner so that it will float free if the vessel sinks.
( b ) Each vessel must have an additional Class B EPIRB for every twenty-five persons onboard, for use in the lifeboats and liferafts.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986; 51 FR 10632, Mar. 28, 1986]
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.01-50 Persons other than crew on towing, oyster, or fishing steam vessels. ( a ) A steam vessel engaged in towing, oyster dredging and planting, and fishing may be permitted to carry persons in addition to its crew.
( b ) The application for a permit to carry such persons may be included in the application described in § 2.01-1. If granted it is endorsed on the certificate of inspection.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51195, Sept. 30, 1997]
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.

§ 154.1165 Controls. ( a ) Each dry chemical hand hose line must be one that can be actuated at its hose reel or hose storage cabinet.
( b ) Each dry chemical monitor must be one that can be actuated and controlled at the monitor.
( c ) A dry chemical monitor for the cargo loading and discharging manifold areas must be one that can be: ( 1 ) Actuated from a location other than the monitor and manifold area; and
( 2 ) Except for pre-aimed monitors, controlled from a location other than the monitor and manifold area.
( d ) Each dry chemical storage unit must have independent piping with a stop valve in the piping for each remote hand hose line and remote monitor where the piping connects to the storage container, if the unit has: ( 1 ) More than one hand hose line;
( 2 ) More than one monitor; or
( 3 ) A combination of hand hose lines and monitors.
( e ) Each stop valve under paragraph (d) of the section must be capable of: ( 1 ) Manual operation; and
( 2 ) Being opened from the hose reel or monitor to which it is connected.
( f ) Damage to any dry chemical system hose, monitor, pipe or control circuits must not prevent the operation of other hoses, monitors, or control circuit that are connected to the same storage unit.
4:14-cv-11764-LVP-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 05/05/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 19
4:14-cv-11764-LVP-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 05/05/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 20
4:14-cv-11764-LVP-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 05/05/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 21
4:14-cv-11764-LVP-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 05/05/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 22
# C_2012331EN.01002301.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Scandic Distilleries SA v OHIM — Bürgerbräu, Röhm & Söhne (BÜRGER)

(Case T-460/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BÜRGER - Earlier Community word mark Bürgerbräu - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scandic Distilleries SA (Bihor, Romania) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2011 (Case R 1962/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne KG and Scandic Distilleries SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Scandic Distilleries SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Scandic Distilleries SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

---
Date: January 28, 2015 

Meeting: EPA & O&G Methane Regulations Meeting 

Rule(s) Discussed: 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization Phone Number 

050 - G07"S 

CAT f 20) -<f'):,- oo~ 'i --------------------- ------~ 

(/ ,/}1-(-:::. 0 l( "i-1 0 b f L( ~ 

!i/Lt.?L"" --"--1-1---L!F'~

_;-~_cc,~ ,, 

C/J rr - -t------

--+
# C_2013225EN.01003601.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/36

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA

(Case C-287/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible - Sale of assets of Alitalia - Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Interested party - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Competence - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 225/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros,)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and D. Grespan), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA, (represented by: G. Bellitti, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09 Ryanair v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking, first, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 6743 of 12 November 2008 on the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to Alitalia (Aid No C 26/08) (ex NN 31/08) (OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3), in so far as that decision did not order the recovery of the aid from Alitalia’s successors, and, second, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 declaring that the procedure for selling off the assets of the Alitalia airline company, in the context of the extraordinary administrative procedure set to lead to the liquidation of that airline, does not constitute State aid, provided that the Italian authorities respect their commitments to ensure that the transactions will be carried out at the market price (Aid N 510/2008) (OJ 2009 C 46, p. 6)

Ryanair

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 19, 2014

t1216

Order 

Clerk

December 19, 2014

149516

BONNIE BLACK, as Next Friend of JESSICA

BITNER, a Minor,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149516

COA: 312379 

Wayne CC: 11-010645-NO

WILLIAM SHAFER, MARY SHAFER, and

IAN GEARHART,

Defendants, 

and

ANTHONY SHAFER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address: (1) whether this action sounds in ordinary negligence or in premises liability; 

(2) the role, if any, of licensor-licensee relationships in this action; (3) the specific nature 

of the duty, if any, owed by defendant Anthony Shafer to the plaintiff’s next friend, 

Jessica Bitner, with respect to Bitner’s injury, including whether the parties had a legally 

significant “special relationship,” see generally, e.g., Williams v Cunningham Drug 

Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495 (1988); (4) whether a reasonable juror could determine that a 

duty was breached; (5) the import of a third party’s criminal act in negligently 

discharging a firearm; and (6) causation generally.