alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, 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 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.1020 Unusually toxic cargoes. ( a ) No person may load or carry a cargo referenced to this section in Table 1 unless the cargo's piping and venting systems are separated from piping and venting systems carrying cargoes not referred to this section.
( b ) The master shall ensure that no heat transfer medium that has been circulated through a cargo referenced to this section in Table 1 is circulated through a cargo not referenced to this section unless he determines the medium to be uncontaminated with cargo.
( c ) No person may discharge overboard condensed steam from the heating system of a cargo referenced to this section in Table 1 unless he first determines the condensate to be uncontaminated with cargo.
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21212, May 17, 1982]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10301

Summary Calendar

ANDREW MACEDONIO CORTEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

P. R. GENUALDO, Badge No. 3052, 

Fort Worth Police Department,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:04-CV-782)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Andrew Macedonio Cortez, Texas prisoner #

1194766, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 complaint, in which he raised: an excessive-force claim

against P.R. Genualdo, a police officer with the Fort Worth Police

Department; and the denial of his motion for appointment of

counsel. 
2

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Guillory v.

Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). Such

judgment is appropriate when the record demonstrates “there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c);

Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc). If the movant meets this burden, the nonmovant must show,

inter alia, a genuine material-fact issue for trial. Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The nonmovant cannot do so

with conclusional allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only

a scintilla of evidence. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.

Summary judgment was proper because no record evidence shows

Genualdo committed the assault alleged by Cortez. To the contrary,

Cortez testified he did not see Genualdo assault him and failed to

present any evidence identifying Genualdo as the officer who

allegedly did so.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining

to appoint counsel to represent Cortez. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,

691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). 

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2147]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; IAR Review of Loan Repayment 
Applications.
    Date: May 24, 2007.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN-18, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Margaret Weidman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center 
Drive, Room 3AN18B, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3663.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 25, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2147 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30888 Conference Calendar

CLINTON M DESROCHE Plaintiff-Appellant

v. RODNEY STRAIN , Sheriff; MARLIN PEACHEY, Warden; NORTHCUTT, Deputy; GIORGIANA BENNET, Lieutenant; Doctor FRENCH, Medical Doctor; Doctor HIGGINS, Medical Doctor Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CV-1372
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Clinton M. Desroche, Louisiana prisoner # 487714, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The district court denied Desroche IFP status on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith under § 1915(a)(3). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-30888

2 By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Desroche is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith

. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Desroche argues that he lacks funds to pursue his appeal, but he fai ls to brief any argument regarding the district court’s certification decision or, in particular, its dismissal of his § 1983 lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed thejudgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Desroche has thus abandoned any challenge to the district court’s denial of IFP on appeal. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Accordingly, we deny his IFP motion and his motion for the appointment for counsel on appeal, and we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court’s dismissal ofDesroche’s § 1983 lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) and our dismissal of this appeal asfrivolous both count as strikesfor purposes of§ 1915(g). SeeAdepegba
v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Desroche is warned that, if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSE D; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-72864, 333-56340, 333-41137, 333-35237 and 333-08559 of InVision
Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 11, 2002 (February 28, 2002 as to Note 16) appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of InVision Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San
Jose, California
March 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
# C_2012331EN.01002003.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey)

(Case T-31/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2010 (Case R 1284/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending January 7, 2006

|Filer                                   | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|CITIZENS BANKSHARES OF SPRINGHILL, INC. | CIC           | Notice by Citizens Bankshares of Springhill, Inc., ESOP, Springhill, Louisiana, and Argent Trust, A Division of National Independent Trust Co., Trustee, West Monroe, Louisiana, to retain ownership and control of 10.53 percent of Citizens Bankshares of Springhill, Inc., Springhill, Louisiana, and indirectly Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Springhill, Louisiana. | Newspaper:01/24/2006Federal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                              | 01/24/2006   
|Federal Register:                       | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0578 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-SW-048-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.9


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of QualMark Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles D.
Johnston, President & Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of
         the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Charles D. Johnston
------------------------------------
Charles D. Johnston
President & Chief Executive Officer
March 27, 2003






In connection with the Annual Report of QualMark Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony A.
Scalese, Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of
         the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Anthony A. Scalese
------------------------------------
Anthony A. Scalese
Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
March 27, 2003


A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906 have been
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
provided to QualMark Corporation and will be retained by QualMark Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
request.
--------
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Highlands Bankshares, Inc. registration statement on Form S-3D (Registration No. 333-83618) of our report dated February 2, 2007 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, and for the periods then ended.  Such report is included in the Highlands Bankshares, Inc. 2006 Annual Report to Stockholders, which is filed as exhibit 13 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

|   | CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS |
|--------|------------------------------|

 

 

 

Bluefield, West Virginia

March 27, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Richard Albright, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10671 

 Hon. Judith E. Levy 

 Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 v. 

 

ISIS, also known as Islamic State Iraq 

Syria, also known as ISIL, and Abu Bakr 

Al-Baghdadi, 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [1]

 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Richard Albright’s 

motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has not filed a complaint. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear that “[a] civil 

action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 3. The Advisory Committee’s notes explain, furthermore, that “[t]his 

rule provides that the first step in an action is the filing of the 

complaint.” See id. Advisory Committee notes, 1937 adoption. Without 

a complaint, the Court cannot issue any preliminary injunctive relief. 

See Powell v. Rios, 241 F. App’x 500, 505 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[a]bsent a 

5:15-cv-10671-JEL-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 03/25/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 8
properly-filed complaint, a court lacks power to issue preliminary 

injunctive relief.”); Alabama v. United States Army Corp of Eng’rs, 424 

F.3d 1117, 1134 (11th Cir. 2005) (“injunctive relief must relate in some 

fashion to the relief requested in the complaint”), cert denied, 547 U.S. 

1192 (2006); Adair v. England, 193 F.Supp.2d 196, 200 (D. D.C. 2002) 

(“[w]hen no complaint is filed, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain 

the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.”); P.K Family Rest. v. IRS, 

535 F.Supp. 1223, 1224 (N.D. Ohio 1982) (“[a]bsent a complaint, this 

Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s petition for injunctive 

relief.”) 

As the plaintiff has failed to file any complaint that invokes the 

Court’s jurisdiction, the Court will not entertain his motion for 

preliminary injunction because it has no subject matter jurisdiction to 

do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days from the date of the entry of 

this order to file a proper complaint that complies with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and that properly invokes the Court’s subjectmatter jurisdiction. If plaintiff fails to file a complaint within this 

5:15-cv-10671-JEL-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 03/25/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 9
timeframe or if he files a complaint that fails to satisfy the federal rules, 

the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. 

Dated: March 25, 2015 s/Judith E. Levy___________ 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

 United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 25, 2015. 

 s/Felicia M. Moses__________ 

 FELICIA M. MOSES 

 Case Manager 

5:15-cv-10671-JEL-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 03/25/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 10
§ 28.510 Definition of stability terms. *Downflooding* means the entry of seawater through any opening into the hull or superstructure of an undamaged vessel due to heel, trim, or submergence of the vessel.
*Downflooding angle* means the static angle from the intersection of the vessel's centerline and the waterline in calm water to the first opening that cannot be closed weathertight and through which downflooding can occur.
*Flush deck* means a continuous weather deck located at the uppermost sheer line of the hull.
*Forward perpendicular* means a vertical line corresponding to the intersection of the forward side of the vessel's stem and the vessel's waterline at the vessel's deepest operating draft.
*Open boat* means a vessel not protected from entry of water by means of a complete deck, or by a combination of partial weather deck and superstructure which is seaworthy for the waters upon which the vessel operates.
*Protected waters* means sheltered waters presenting no special hazards such as most rivers, harbors, lakes, and similar waters as determined by the OCMI.
*Qualified individual* means an individual or an organization with formal training in and experience in matters dealing with naval architecture calculations.
*Substantially altered* means the vessel is physically altered in a manner that affects the vessel's stability and includes: ( 1 ) Alterations that result in a change of the vessel's lightweight vertical center of gravity of more than 2 inches (51 millimeters), a change in the vessel's lightweight displacement of more than 3 percent, or an increase of more than 5 percent in the vessel's projected lateral area, as determined by tests or calculations;
( 2 ) Alterations which change the vessel's underwater shape;
( 3 ) Alterations which change a vessel's angle of downflooding; and
( 4 ) Alterations which change a vessel's buoyant volume.
*Well deck* means a weather deck fitted with solid bulwarks that impede the drainage of water over the sides or an exposed recess in the weather deck extending one-half or more of the length of the vessel.