alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 128.320 Exhaust systems.

No diesel-engine exhaust system need meet the material requirements in § 58.10-5(d)(1)(i) of this chapter if the installation is certified as required by § 128.220(c) of this part.
#### Isaac Lunney, *Respondent, v.*The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, *Appellants*.

Order reversed. Order entered as directed in opinion. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
§ 169.672 Wiring for power and lighting circuits. ( a ) Wiring for power and lighting circuits must have copper conductors, of 14 AWG or larger, and— ( 1 ) Meet Article 310-8 and Table 310-13 of the National Electrical Code;
( 2 ) Be listed as “50 volt boat cable”; or
( 3 ) Meet subpart 111.60 of this chapter.
( b ) Wiring for power and lighting circuits on new vessels must have stranded conductors.
( c ) Conductors must be sized so that— ( 1 ) They are adequate for the loads carried; and
( 2 ) The voltage drop at the load terminals is not more than 10 percent.
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.

§ 153.912 Certificate of inhibition or stabilization. ( a ) When a cargo in Table 1 is referred to this section, no person may operate a tankship carrying the cargo without a written certification, carried on the bridge of the tankship, from the shipper that the cargo is: ( 1 ) Inhibited; or
( 2 ) Stabilized.
( b ) The certification required by this section must contain the following information: ( 1 ) Whether the cargo is inhibited or stabilized.
( 2 ) The name and concentration of the inhibitor or stabilizer.
( 3 ) The date the inhibitor or stabilizer was added.
( 4 ) The length of time the inhibitor or stabilizer is effective.
( 5 ) Any temperature limitations qualifying the inhibitor's or stabilizer's effective lifetime.
( 6 ) The action to be taken should the duration of the voyage exceed the inhibitor's or stabilizer's useful life.
§ 180.130 Stowage of survival craft. ( a ) Each survival craft must be: ( 1 ) Secured to the vessel by a painter with a float-free link permanently attached to the vessel except that a float-free link is not required if the vessel operates only on waters not as deep as the length of the painter;
( 2 ) Stowed so that when the vessel sinks the survival craft floats free and, if inflatable, inflates automatically;
( 3 ) Stowed in a position that is readily accessible to crew members for launching, or else provided with a remotely operated device that releases the survival craft into launching position or into the water;
( 4 ) Stowed in a way that permits manual release from its securing arrangements;
( 5 ) Ready for immediate use so that crew members can carry out preparations for embarkation and launching in less than 5 minutes;
( 6 ) Provided with means to prevent shifting;
( 7 ) Stowed in a way that neither the survival craft nor its stowage arrangements will interfere with the embarkation and operation of any other survival craft at any other launching station;
( 8 ) Stowed in a way that any protective covers will not interfere with launching and embarkation;
( 9 ) Fully equipped as required under this part; and
( 10 ) Stowed, as far as practicable, in a position sheltered from breaking seas and protected from damage by fire.
( b ) A hydrostatic release unit when used in a float-free arrangement must be approved under approval series 160.062 or 160.162 or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( c ) A mechanical, manually operated device to assist in launching a survival craft must be provided if: ( 1 ) The survival craft weights more than 90.7 kilograms (200 pounds); and
( 2 ) The survival craft requires lifting more than 300 vertical millimeters (one vertical foot) to be launched.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 975, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51357, Sept. 30, 1997; 62 FR 64306, Dec. 5, 1997]
----

Note the lack of visible high-backscatter dredged material deposits at the Port Allen disposal site like those visible in the multibeam image from offshore Honolulu.  Scale across bottom of image is about 12.2 km. The disposal site boundary is outlined by a red-colored circle with a 6000 ft (1829.2 m) diameter.

Top of pageBeginning of OFR 00-124URL: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-124/fig4.htmlMaintainer: SusanA. CochranLast modified: 12 Dec 2000
U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Western RegionCoastal and Marine Geology
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 the
quarterly report of ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H.
Aasen, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Business 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 to the best of my knowledge,
that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                           
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/ THOMAS H. AASEN                                                                       
|                   |  |  |  | Thomas H. AasenExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Chief Business Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to
the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
[LOGO]
THE
SHEMANO
GROUP

Michael W. Sanders
Attorney at Law
20333 S.H. 249, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77070

January 21, 2005

RE: CONFIRMATION OF CARVE OUT TO FINDERS COMPENSATION

Mr. Sanders:

Firstly, congratulations on the recent funding of VitroTech Corporation
("VitroTech"). I understand from some of the investors in VitroTech with whom we
have an excellent relationship, how dedicated you have been personally as
VitroTech's legal counsel to ensure the successful closing of the Vitrobirth
financing. Secondly, and the purpose of this letter, is to go on record to note
that the One Hundred Thousand Dollar Finders Fee ("Finders Fee") which was
received by our firm following the closing of the recent financing is a carve
out from the Finders Agreement ("the Agreement") executed between VitroTech and
The Shemano Group as of August 11, 2004.

Since we have been sensitive to the financial pressures on VitroTech as a result
of the delay in closing the financing, and frankly are more interested in
investing in a long term relationship with VitroTech, we agreed to waive any
rights to warrants outlined in paragraph 3(b) of the Finders Agreements, and
moreover, notwithstanding the cash compensation entitlement of eight percent
(8%) as outlined in paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement, in consideration of the
Finders Fees that we have already received, the Cash Compensation outlined in
Paragraph 3(a) is no longer applicable.

I personally spoke to the principal investor representing Vitrobirth as well as
Vitrobirth's attorney's and am confident that VitroTech as a value-added and
hands-on investor in Vitrobirth which we believe will inure to the benefit of
VitroTech.

We look forward to the developing a long term relationship with VitroTech and
are always available should the company seek advice on any areas of the capital
markets.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me directly.

Sincerely,

Bill Corbett
CEO
# C_2013079EN.01001602.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION)

(Case T-412/11) (1)

1

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

2013/C 79/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2011 (Case R 1293/2010-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 40 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 40 Filed 10/28/14 Page 2 of 2
# C_2013171EN.01000702.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-55/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles - Exemption maintained after the expiry of the transitional period - Infringement)

2013/C 171/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Breach of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003, on restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles — Exemption maintained after the expiry of the transitional period

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by continuing to grant, after the expiry on 31 December 2006 of the transitional period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 23 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, and Annex II to that directive, an exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by continuing to grant, after the expiry on 31 December 2006 of the transitional period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 23 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, and Annex II to that directive, an exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of the directive;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
NUMBER 13

- 16

- 000 18

- CR 

### COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ESHELLE SAENZ , A ppellant , V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On Appeal from the 9 4th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



### ORDER ABATING APPEAL
Before Justices Benavides , Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam This cause is before the Court regarding the preparation of the reporter ’ s record in this cause. Appellant’s counsel has failed to request a reporter’s record. The reporter was advised that the appellant no longer wished to pursue the appeal but a motion to dismiss has not been filed with this Court.2

This sequence of events r equires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court. Upon remand, the judge of the trial cour t shall immediately cause notice to be given and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant has abandoned h er appeal. If it is determined that appellant has not abandoned h er appeal, the court shall further determine if appellant ’ s attorney of recor d continues to represent appellant and will diligently pursue this appeal. The court shall further determine if the reporter's record, or any part thereof, has been lost or destroyed, and shall make appropriate findings under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f),
if necessary. Otherwise, the court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt preparation of a reporter's record, and shall enter any orders required to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties' rights. The trial court shall prepa re and file its findings and orders and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed this the 27 th day of May, 2016.
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 107.257 Testing of fire hose.

Each fire hose must be subjected to a test pressure equivalent to the maximum pressure to which it may be subjected during operation. However, each fire hose must be subjected to a pressure of at least 100 p.s.i.
§ 167.30-1 Notice of repairs or alterations required. ( a ) It shall be the duty of the master, owner, or agent to notify the nearest Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, whenever repairs or alterations are required, or will be made on a nautical school ship.
( b ) Whenever a nautical school ship is placed upon the dock, it shall be the duty of the master, owner or agent to report the same to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, so that a thorough inspection may be made by the Coast Guard to determine what is necessary to make such a nautical school ship seaworthy, if the condition or age of the nautical school ship, in the judgment of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, renders such examination necessary.
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending November 26, 2005

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for First Quarter of 2006 (January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2006)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

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
# C_2011130EN.01002501.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/25

---

Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Yoro v Council of the European Union

(Case T-146/11)

2011/C 130/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Claude Yoro (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Claude YORO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, have no factual basis, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Claude YORO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, have no factual basis,

| — | consequently,






  — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

| — | in the alterntive, order that the name of Mr Claude YORO be removed from the lists annexed to the aforementioned Regulation and the aforementioned Decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alterntive, order that the name of Mr Claude YORO be removed from the lists annexed to the aforementioned Regulation and the aforementioned Decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.

Guiai Bi Poin

Council.

---
United States District Court

Eastern District of North Carolina

Northern Division

Holly Lynn Koerber and

Committee for Truth in Politics, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:08-cv-00039-H

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay all Proceedings Pending a 

Decision in Citizens United v. FEC

Plaintiffs Holly Lynn Koerber and Committee for Truth in Politics, Inc. (“CTP”) respectfully move for a stay of all proceedings in this action pending a decision from the United States

Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, 2008 WL 2788753 (D.D.C. July 18, 2008), prob.

juris. noted, -- S.Ct. -- (Nov. 14, 2008). Because Citizens United involves one of the same questions of law as the present case, principles of judicial economy strongly favor a stay of this action

pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of this issue. Defendant Federal Election Commission

does not oppose this motion. Joint Report of the Parties (Dkt. 40) ¶ 1. 

Motion to Stay all Proceedings 1

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 41 Filed 01/02/2009 Page 1 of 3
On this 2nd day of January, 2009.

/s/ James Bopp, Jr. 

James Bopp, Jr., jboppjr@aol.com

 Ind. Bar No. 2838-84

Richard E. Coleson, rcoleson@bopplaw.com

 Ind. Bar No. 11527-70

Clayton J. Callen, ccallen@bopplaw.com

 Mo. Bar No. 59885

Sarah Troupis, stroupis@bopplaw.com

 Wis. Bar No. 1061515

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Stam 

Paul Stam, paulstam@bellsouth.net

State Bar No. 6865

STAM FORDHAM & DANCHI, P.A.

P.O. Box 1600

510 W. Williams Street

Apex, NC 27502

919/362-8873 telephone

919/387-7329 facsimile

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

Motion to Stay all Proceedings 2

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 41 Filed 01/02/2009 Page 2 of 3
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on January 2, 2009, I served upon the below listed persons copies of

this document by electronically filing this document for electronic transmission.

David B. Kolker, dkolker@fec.gov

Claire N. Rajan, crajan@fec.gov

Harry J. Summers, hsummers@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20436

R.A. Renfer, Jr.

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Rm. 800, 310 New Bern Ave.

Raleigh, NC 27601

rudy.renfer@usdoj.gov

Anita S. Earls

SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

6 Superior Ct. 

Durham, NC 27713

anitaearls@gmail.com

/s/ Paul Stam 

Paul Stam, paulstam@bellsouth.net

State Bar No. 6865

STAM FORDHAM & DANCHI, P.A.

P.O. Box 1600510 W. Williams Street

Apex, NC 27502

919/362-8873 telephone

919/387-7329 facsimile

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

Motion to Stay all Proceedings 3

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 41 Filed 01/02/2009 Page 3 of 3