alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 272.32 Mitigation of penalty. The Director, Office of Ship Operating Assistance, may decide, after a non-emergency foreign repair occurs, to mitigate the penalty. Any mitigation of penalty shall be based on a determination that special circumstances existed at the time of repair. The Director shall not consider the difference in the price of foreign and domestic repair work in making this determination, and shall not grant prior approval of foreign repairs. In determining whether special circumstances existed, the Director shall consider, among others, the following factors: ( a ) The trading area of the vessel both before and after the repair was performed;
( b ) Loss of revenue and effect on vessel utilization if the vessel had returned to the United States for repairs;
( c ) The additional operating expense which would have resulted from a return to the United States to repair the vessel; and
( d ) Whether the repairs could have been deferred until return to the United States, taking into consideration the Coast Guard requirements for dry docking and special surveys.
§ 185.515 Passenger safety bill. ( a ) On vessels described by 46 CFR 175.110(d) of this chapter, a passenger safety bill must be posted by the master in each cabin or stateroom, and in passenger accommodation spaces.
( b ) Each passenger safety bill required by this section must list: ( 1 ) The embarkation station and the number and location of the survival craft to which each passenger is assigned, if applicable;
( 2 ) The fire and emergency signal and the abandon ship signal;
( 3 ) Essential action that must be taken in an emergency; and
( 4 ) If immersion suits are provided for passengers, the location of the suits and illustrated instructions on the method of donning the suits.
[USCG-2021-0306, 86 FR 73173, Dec. 27, 2021, as amended by USCG-2021-0306, 88 FR 17741, Mar. 24, 2023]
§ 171.124 Watertight integrity above the margin line in a vessel less than 100 gross tons. ( a ) Each hatch exposed to the weather must be watertight; except that, the following hatches may be weathertight: ( 1 ) Each hatch on a watertight trunk that extends at least 12 inches (30.5 centimeters) above the weather deck.
( 2 ) Each hatch in a cabin top.
( 3 ) Each hatch on a vessel that operates only on protected waters.
( b ) Each hatch cover must— ( 1 ) Have securing devices; and
( 2 ) Be attached to the hatch frame or coaming by hinges, captive chains, or to other devices to prevent its loss.
( c ) Each hatch that provides access to crew or passenger accommodations must be operable from either side.
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a weathertight door with permanent watertight coamings that comply with the height requirements in table 171.124(d) must be provided for each opening located in a deck house or companionway that— ( 1 ) Gives access into the hull; and
( 2 ) Is located in— ( i ) A cockpit;
( ii ) A well; or
( iii ) An exposed location on a flush deck vessel. Table 171.124(d)
Route
Height of coaming Exposed or partially protected
6 inches (15.2 centimeters). Protected
3 inches (7.6 centimeters).
( e ) If an opening in a location specified in paragraph (d) of this section is provided with a Class 1 watertight door, the height of the watertight coaming need only be sufficient to accommodate the door.
[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51354, Sept. 30, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,012
<SECURITIES>                                     6,027
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (149)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,185
<PP&E>                                           2,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,144)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,604
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,753
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,357)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,719
<SALES>                                         14,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,205
<CGS>                                            3,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,240)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,240)<F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,240)<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.57)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES IN PROCESS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF $4.5 MILLION AND DEMING RELATED
INTEGRATION EXPENSES OF $279,000.
<F2>EXCLUSIVE OF EXPENSES NOTED ON (1), NET LOSS PER SHARE WOULD HAVE BEEN ($.05).
</FN>


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

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

| Date:                May 2, 2008 | /s/                Gilbert J. Pomar, III             |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Gilbert                J. Pomar, III                 |
|                             | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
|                             |                                                 |
| Date:                May 2, 2008 | /s/                Valerie A. Kendall                |
|                             | Valerie                A. Kendall                    |
|                             | Executive                Vice President              |
|                             | and                Chief Financial Officer           |

----
#### Ransom Stanley, *Respondent, v.*Merrick Ogden, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________________________________________________

 

THOMAS EUGENE HOLDEN # 457855,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 14-13701

THOMAS MACKIE, 

Respondent.

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On November 4, 2019, the court entered an opinion and order denying the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Thomas Holden. (ECF No. 23.) In 

that order, the court specifically declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id. at 

PageID.1014–15.) Months later, Petitioner filed the instant motion for a certificate of 

appealability and a separate request for appointment of counsel. 

A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the 

court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Indah v. U.S. 

Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). Such is the case here; 

Petitioner’s motion simply rehashes his earlier arguments raised in his original petition. 

Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying a certificate 

of appealability is both untimely and fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the 

court has been misled or that a different disposition must result from a correction 

thereof. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly,

Case 2:14-cv-13701-RHC-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 05/11/20 PageID.1060 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (ECF 

No. 29) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland /z 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 11, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, May 11, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Lisa Wagner /x 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(810) 292-6522

S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEK\Staff Attorney\14-13701.HOLDEN.coa.appoint.counsel.BH.HEK.docx

Case 2:14-cv-13701-RHC-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 05/11/20 PageID.1061 Page 2 of 2
# C_2014112EN.01002701.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — InnoLux v Commission

(Case T-91/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Agreements and concerted practices concerning prices and production capacity - Territorial jurisdiction - Internal sales - Sales of finished products incorporating cartelised products - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Rounding method - Unlimited jurisdiction))

2014/C 112/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (Zhunan, Taiwan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays), and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets at EUR 288 000 000 the fine imposed on InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp., in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets at EUR 288 000 000 the fine imposed on InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp., in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders InnoLux to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders InnoLux to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

1

---
# C_2008308EN.01000601.xml

| 3.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/6

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 308/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 29.10.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 533/08 |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Support measures for the banking industry in Sweden |
| Legal basis | Lagen om statligt stöd till kreditinstitut |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 150 000 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 10.2008-4.2009 |
| Economic sectors | Financial intermediation |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Swedish National Debt Office |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

29.10.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 533/08

Member State

Sweden

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Support measures for the banking industry in Sweden

Legal basis

Lagen om statligt stöd till kreditinstitut

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 150 000 million

Intensity

—

Duration

10.2008-4.2009

Economic sectors

Financial intermediation

Name and address of the granting authority

Swedish National Debt Office

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
# C_2015073EN.01002201.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-509/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to privacy - Proportionality)

(2015/C 073/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 74), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00435-CV

M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY,

Appellant

V.

JAMES M. SHELTON, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 271st District 

Court

of Wise County (CV14-04-241)

June 3, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellant M.A. Mortenson Company shall pay all of 

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                                 1,291
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         10,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     132,642
<PP&E>                                62,239
<DEPRECIATION>                       (36,107)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,151,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                669,553
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                           3,751,540
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,151,172
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,485,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (1,485,978)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    (299,049)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (817)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        4,330
<INCOME-TAX>                      (1,481,648)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,481,648)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)




</TABLE>
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2034 

AN ACT 

To permit refinancing of certain loans under the Rural Housing Service program for guaranteed loans for rural housing, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2034 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Homeowners 

3 Protection Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE PRO5 GRAM. 

6 Subsection (h) of section 502 of the Housing Act of 

7 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ‘‘paragraph 

9 (13)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (15)’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘1 percent’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘2 percent’’; 

12 (3) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘REFI13 NANCING’’ and inserting ‘‘MODIFICATION OF GUAR14 ANTEED LOANS’’; 

15 (4) in paragraph (14)— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘GUARANTEES FOR REFI17 NANCING LOANS’’ and inserting ‘‘REFINANCING

18 OF LOANS MADE OR GUARANTEED BY SEC19 RETARY’’; and 

20 (B) in subparagraph (E)— 

21 (i) by striking ‘‘(10)’’ and inserting 

22 ‘‘(12)’’; and 

23 (ii) by striking ‘‘(13)’’ and inserting 

24 ‘‘(9) or of paragraphs (11) through (14)’’; 
3 

•HR 2034 EH

1 (5) by redesignating paragraphs (10), (11), 

2 (12), (13), and (14) as paragraphs (12), (13), (14), 

3 (15), and (10), respectively; 

4 (6) by transferring and inserting paragraph 

5 (10), as so redesignated by paragraph (5) of this 

6 subsection, after paragraph (9); and 

7 (7) by inserting after paragraph (10), as so re8 designated and transferred by paragraphs (5) and 

9 (6) of this subsection, the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(11) REFINANCING OF LOANS MADE BY PRI11 VATE SECTOR LENDERS.— 

12 ‘‘(A) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may, in 

13 accordance with this paragraph, guarantee a 

14 loan made to refinance a loan made by a pri15 vate lender to an individual to acquire or con16 struct a single-family residence. 

17 ‘‘(B) ELIGIBILITY.—Except as provided in 

18 subparagraph (C), all requirements of this sub19 section shall apply to loans guaranteed and loan 

20 guarantees made under this paragraph. 

21 ‘‘(C) GUARANTEE FEE.—Notwithstanding 

22 paragraph (8), the Secretary shall charge a 

23 guarantee fee with respect to loans guaranteed 

24 under this paragraph at levels necessary, but no 

25 higher than needed, to allow such class of loans 
4 

•HR 2034 EH

1 to be guaranteed without resulting in a need for 

2 an appropriation for a credit subsidy.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2034 

AN ACT 

To permit refinancing of certain loans under the 

loans for rural housing, and for other purposes. Rural Housing Service program for guaranteed
# Malaria Awareness Day, 2007

Americans are fortunate to live in a land that eliminated malaria decades ago. Today, our country helps fight this disease in Africa, because we believe in the timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. On Malaria Awareness Day, we renew our commitment to helping combat malaria in Africa and around the world. 

Tragically, one child in Africa dies every 30 seconds from malaria, a disease that is highly treatable and preventable. To reduce malaria's mortality rate in the hardest-hit African countries, I announced the President's Malaria Initiative in 2005, a five-year, $1.2 billion program. At last year's White House Summit on Malaria, Laura and I were pleased to announce the expansion of this initiative to several additional countries. These efforts are making a difference, and millions of people have already benefited from insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor spraying, and anti-malaria medicine. 

Across our Nation, Americans are answering the call to act. By simply donating an insecticide-treated bed net, one individual can help save a life. For more information about how to help and for a list of humanitarian organizations, visit fightingmalaria.gov. 

Americans are a compassionate people who care deeply about the plight of others and the future of our world, and we can all be proud of the work our Nation is doing to fight disease and despair. By standing with the people of Africa in the fight against malaria, we can help lift a burden of unnecessary suffering, provide hope and health, and forge lasting friendships. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 25, 2007, as Malaria Awareness Day. I encourage Americans to answer the universal call to love a neighbor and join in our goal of eradicating malaria on the African continent. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 

[FR Doc. 07-2136

Billing code 3195-01-P
# 2018 Executive Calendars

**

----

   The Executive Calendar is published by the Executive Clerk’s office in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. The calendar is published each day the Senate is in session. These calendars list executive business items such as unanimous consent agreements, resolutions, treaties, and nominations. The calendar is identified by the date published and a volume number, which both appear on the cover of the calendar. A final calendar is published at the end of each session of Congress. For a detailed summary of the sections of the Executive Calendar, see, About the Executive Calendar.