alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 295.23 Reporting requirements. The Contractor shall submit to the Director, Office of Financial and Rate Approvals, Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590, one of the following reports, including management footnotes where necessary to make a fair financial presentation [Note: MARAD will accept electronic options (such as facsimile and Internet) for transmission of required information to MARAD, if practicable.]: ( a ) *Form MA-172.* Not later than 120 days after the close of the Contractor's semiannual accounting period, a Form MA-172 on a semiannual basis, in accordance with 46 CFR 232.6; or
( b ) *Financial Statement.* Not later than 120 days after the close of the Contractor's annual accounting period, an audited annual financial statement in accordance with 46 CFR 232.6 and the most recent vessel operating cost data submitted as part of its Emergency Preparedness Agreement.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2133-0525) [62 FR 37737, July 15, 1997, as amended at 68 FR 62538, Nov. 5, 2003; 69 FR 61451, Oct. 19, 2004]
#### § 28.145 Distress signals.

Except as provided by 28.305, each vessel must be equipped with the distress signals specified in table [28.145](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.145).

Table [28.145](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.145)—Distress Signals

| Area | Devices required |
| --- | --- |
| Ocean, more than 50 miles from coastline | 3 parachute flares, approval series 160.136; plus 6 hand flares, approval series 160.121; plus 3 smoke signals, approval series 160.122. |
| Ocean, 3-50 miles from the coastline; or more than 3 miles from the coastline on the Great Lakes | 3 parachute flares, approval series 160.136, or 160.036; plus 6 hand flares, approval series 160.121 or 160.021; plus 3 smoke signals, approval series 160.122, 160.022, or 160.037. |
| Coastal waters, excluding the Great Lakes; or within 3 miles of the coastline on the Great Lakes | Night visual distress signals consisting of one electric distress light, approval series 161.013 or 3 approved flares; plus Day visual distress signals consisting of one distress flag, approval series 160.072, or 3 approved flares, or 3 approved smoke signals.1 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 If flares are carried, the same 3 flares may be counted toward meeting both the day and night requirement. | |

[CGD 88-079, [56 FR 40393](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-40393), Aug. 14, 1991, as amended at [60 FR 48048](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/60-FR-48048), Sept. 18, 1995; USCG-2000-7790, [65 FR 58458](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/65-FR-58458), Sept. 29, 2000]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                                 January 6, 2005








VIA FAX (305) 835 2236
Odimo Incorporated
14001 N.W. 4th Street
Sunrise, Florida 33325
Attn: Alan Lipton, CEO

         RE:  FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Dear Alan:

         This is to confirm that in the event that Odimo Incorporated's current
cash availability from its credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank (the
"Credit Facility") is completely consumed and Odimo Incorporated requires
additional cash to fund operations during the year ended December 31, 2005, that
Softbank Capital Partners LP (from itself and certain affiliates) shall provide
to Odimo Incorporated up to $5 million of equity financing on terms mutually
agreeable to the parties or bridge financing on similar terms as outlined in the
Credit Facility.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            SOFTBANK CAPITAL PARTNERS LP

                                            By: SOFTBANK Capital Partners LLC,
                                                     its General Partner


                                            By: /s/ Steven J. Murray
                                                --------------------------------
                                                  Steven J. Murray
                                                  Administrative Member
#### § 184.502 Requirements of the Federal Communications Commission.

A vessel must comply with the applicable requirements for any radio and Electronic Position Indicating Radiobeacon (EPIRB) installations, including the requirements for a station license and installation certificates to be issued by the Federal Communications Commission, as set forth in 47 CFR part 80.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2215 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 140 Merriman Road in Garden City, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘John J. Shivnen Post Office Building’’. 

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


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2215 RFS

1 SECTION 1. JOHN J. SHIVNEN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 140 Merriman Road in Garden 

4 City, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘John J. Shivnen Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John J. Shivnen Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION HEARING 

 On March 9, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the following filings in this 

action: 

 Defendants’ motion to modify the case caption (ECF #338); 

 Plaintiff’s objection (ECF #390) to the Special Master’s Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants be allowed to take 

the deposition of Elena Ford (ECF #376); and 

 Defendants’ objection (ECF #385) to the Special Master’s Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Court strike the expert reply 

reports of Defendants’ experts Drs. Shamos and Malek (ECF #375). 

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED as follows: 
2 

 Defendants’ motion to modify the case caption (ECF #338) is TAKEN 

UNDER ADVISEMENT; 

 Plaintiff’s objection (ECF #390) to the Special Master’s Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants be allowed to take 

the deposition of Elena Ford (ECF #376) is SUSTAINED. Defendants 

shall not take the deposition of Elena Ford; and 

 Defendants’ objection (ECF #385) to the Special Master’s Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Court strike the expert reply 

reports of Defendants’ experts Drs. Shamos and Malek (ECF #375) is 

SUSTAINED IN PART AND TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN 

PART. With respect to the expert reply report of Dr. Shamos, the Court 

SUSTAINS IN PART Defendants’ objection. Dr. Shamos will be 

allowed to testify at trial. However, Drs. Shamos and Malek will not 

be allowed to address the same public disclosure references. In 

addition, Defendants shall make Dr. Shamos available for an additional 

3.5 hours of deposition that shall be limited to the content of his reply 

expert report. With respect to the expert reply report of Dr. Malek, the 

Court TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT Defendants’ objection 

pending its decision on whether to allow claims and defenses related to 

PDOR2 to be raised in this case. By no later than March 21, 2018, the 
3 

parties shall file on the docket proposals with respect to how the Court 

should rule on that question and how the inclusion (or exclusion) of 

PDOR2 should affect the case calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: March 9, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 9, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
#### Andrea GREEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; Pardiz Ghadiri, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-15919.

D.C. No. CV-02-01589-JCM/PAL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 16, 2004.

Decided April 27, 2004.

David A. Olshan, Nevada Fair Housing Center, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Theodore Parker, III, Parker Nelson & Arm, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Andrea Green appeals from the dismissal of her complaint. The district court found that Green’s federal complaint was a forbidden de facto appeal from a state court judgment of the Nevada Justice Court, and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *See Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.2003).

We take judicial notice of the fact that the Nevada District Court, Nevada’s appellate court in this instance, has reversed the decision of the Nevada Justice Court, the state court judgment from which the district court had held that Green had brought a forbidden de-facto appeal. Because therefore there is no longer an underlying state court judgment in Green’s case, *Rooker-Feldman*does not bar subject matter jurisdiction in the district court. *See Noel,*341 F.3d at 1164. Our disposition does not address the merits of a possible dismissal of Green’s com*85plaint under the principles of abstention articulated in *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).

We VACATE the order of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2013108EN.01000901.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/9

---

Order of the Court of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe Ltd v European Commission, Enviro Tech International Inc.

(Case C-118/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC - Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances - Classification of n-propyl-bromide)

2013/C 108/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents), Enviro Tech International Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04 Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for (i) annulment in part of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1), in so far as it classifies n-propyl-bromide as a ‘highly flammable’ substance, and for (ii) damages for the loss which the applicants claim they had sustained — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of individual concern

Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc.

European Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Enviro Tech Europe Ltd is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Enviro Tech Europe Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Clyde R. Wallin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:August 17, 2006       /s/ Clyde R. Wallin     Clyde R. Wallin    Chief Financial Officer and    Senior Vice President, Finance
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1-2 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-00762-RWR Document 1-2 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 2 of 2
# C_2014052EN.01002102.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV v European Commission

(Case C-586/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Fixing of the gross price of road pavement bitumen - Fixing of a rebate for road builders - Evidence - Principle of equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction - Proportionality of the fine - Review by the Court)

2014/C 52/36

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision

Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.4**Exhibit 31.4 Certification Pursuant to Section 302 (a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**I, Clyde R. Wallin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Sipex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.       /s/ Clyde R. Wallin Clyde R. Wallin     Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Finance    April 19, 2007
v055340_ex10-61 Page

 

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-62 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-63 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-64 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-65 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-66 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-67 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-68 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-69 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-610 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-611 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-612 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-613 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-614 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-615 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-616 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-617 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-618 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-619 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-620 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-621 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-622 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-623 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-624 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-625 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-626 Page

 

 

 



 

 

v055340_ex10-627 Page

 

 

 



 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
EXHIBIT 10.19
 EXECUTION VERSION
 TRIAD FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 Senior Unsecured Demand Promissory Note
 U.S.$40,000,000
    
    New York, New York
June 17, 2008
 Company Holders Schedule A Maturity Date Note
 Borrowings
 Initial Loans
 Subsequent Loans Loans
  -1-




---



##### 



Payment of Interest and Principal of Note
    Sufficiently Favorable Facility provided
 Representations and Warranties
    -2-




---



##### 



Restriction on Subordinated Indebtedness
 Events of Default Events of Default
    -3-




---



##### 



Bankruptcy
Code
   Material Adverse Effect
  -4-




---



##### 



provided provided
    Remedies on Default, etc.
 -5-




---



##### 



Issuance of New Preferred Units
 Parent HGF Preferred Units less GTCR Preferred Units Preferred Units
  Lien Defined
 Miscellaneous
    
 -6-




---



##### 



Register
     -7-




---



##### 



Default
 -8-




---



##### 



TRIAD FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:

/s/
Daniel D. LeonardName:
    Daniel D. LeonardTitle: AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:
GTCR FUND VIII, L.P.By:
    GTCR Partners VIII, L.P.Its:
    General PartnerBy:
    GTCR Golder Rauner II, L.L.C.Its:
    General PartnerBy:
    /s/ David DonniniName:  David DonniniTitle:GTCR FUND VIII/B, L.P.By:
    GTCR Partners VIII, L.P.Its:
    General PartnerBy:
    GTCR Golder Rauner II, L.L.C.Its:
    General PartnerBy:
    /s/ David DonniniName:  David DonniniTitle:GTCR CO-INVEST II, L.P.By:
    GTCR Golder Rauner II, L.L.C.Its:
    General PartnerBy:
    /s/ David DonniniName:  David DonniniTitle:




---



##### 



TRIAD HOLDINGS, LLCBy:

/s/
Daniel D. LeonardName:  Daniel D. LeonardTitle:




---



##### 



EXECUTION VERSION
 Schedule A
 Percentage Assigned ofHolder
    
    Commitment/LoansGTCR Fund VIII, L.P.
    
    84.686%GTCR Fund VIII/B, L.P.
    
    14.862%GTCR Co-Invest II, L.P.
    
    0.452%TOTAL:
    
    100%