alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 32.60-15 Segregation of cargo; Grade E—TB/ALL. ( a ) *General.* The galleys, living quarters, navigation spaces, general cargo spaces, boilerrooms, and enclosed spaces containing machinery, where sources of vapor ignition are normally present, shall be segregated from the cargo tanks by tight bulkheads and intervening spaces are not required.
( b ) *Cargo tank spaces.* Cargo tank spaces can be terminated at any deck with hatches on the same deck, but the vent lines shall be extended to the weather deck. Butterworth openings and extension rods may be located on the tank top.
2:15-cv-11912-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1
2:15-cv-11912-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2
2:15-cv-11912-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3
#### John B. Lester, Respondent, v. Peter Crowley, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss apipeal granted, with ten dollars costs, unless the appellant shall serve within ten days three printed copies of the complaint and answer used on the motion below, which have been omitted from the copies of the case served, and pay ten dollars costs of this motion, in which case the motion is denied.
§ 172.140 Permeability of spaces. ( a ) When doing the calculations required in § 172.130, the permeability of a floodable space other than a machinery space must be as listed in Table 172.060(b).
( b ) Calculations in which a machinery space is treated as a floodable space must be based on an assumed machinery space permeability of 0.85, unless the use of an assumed permeability of less than 0.85 is justified in detail.
( c ) If a cargo tank would be penetrated under the assumed damage, the cargo tank must be assumed to lose all cargo and refill with salt water up to the level of the tankship's final equilibrium waterline.
#### Lazarus S. Murad, *Appellant, v.*The National Stove Works and Ellis R. Thomas, *Respondents*.

Order modified as directed in opinion, without costs to either party. Opinion by

Brady, J.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Keith Schonerstedt, * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 22911B.

Vs. No. 11-21-00186-CR * February 3, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Keith Schonerstedt’s motion to dismiss this appeal

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
§ 25.01-1 Applicable to all vessels. The provisions of this part shall apply to all vessels except as specifically noted. Note to § 25.01-1 :
33 CFR parts 175, 177, 179, 181 and 183 contain additional regulations applicable to Uninspected Passenger Vessels.
[USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59775, Oct. 1, 2012]
§ 197.346 Diver's equipment. ( a ) Each diver using SCUBA must have— ( 1 ) Self-contained underwater breathing equipment including— ( i ) A primary breathing gas supply with a cylinder pressure gage readable by the diver during the dive; and
( ii ) A diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply provided by— ( A ) A manual reserve (J valve); or
( B ) An independent reserve cylinder connected and ready for use;
( 2 ) A face mask;
( 3 ) An inflatable floatation device;
( 4 ) A weight belt capable of quick release;
( 5 ) A knife;
( 6 ) Swim fins or shoes;
( 7 ) A diving wristwatch; and
( 8 ) A depth gage.
( b ) Each diver using a heavyweight diving outfit must— ( 1 ) Have a helmet group consisting of helmet, breastplate, and associated valves and connections;
( 2 ) Have a diving dress group consisting of a basic dress that encloses the body (except for head and hands) in a tough, waterproof cover, gloves, shoes, weight assembly, and knife;
( 3 ) Have a hose group consisting of the breathing gas hose and fittings, the control valve, the lifeline, communications cable, and a pneumofathometer; and
( 4 ) Be provided with a helmet cushion and weighted shoes.
( c ) Each surface-supplied dive operation using a heavyweight diving outfit must have an extra breathing gas hose with attaching tools available to the standby diver.
( d ) Each diver using a lightweight diving outfit must have— ( 1 ) A safety harness;
( 2 ) A weight assembly capable of quick release;
( 3 ) A mask group consisting of a lightweight mask and associated valves and connections;
( 4 ) A diving dress group consisting of wet or dry diving dress, gloves, shoes or fins, and knife; and
( 5 ) A hose group consisting of the breathing gas hose and fittings, the control valve, the lifeline, communications cable, and a pneumofathometer (if the breaking strength of the communications cable is at least equal to that required for the lifeline, the communications cable can serve as the lifeline).
( e ) Each surface-supplied air dive operation within the no-decompression limits and to depths of 130 fsw or less must have a primary breathing gas supply at the dive location.
( f ) Each surface-supplied dive operation outside the no-compression limits, deeper than 130 fsw, or using mixed-gas as a breathing mixture must have at the dive location— ( 1 ) A primary breathing gas supply; and
( 2 ) A secondary breathing gas supply.
( g ) Each diver diving outside the no-decompression limits, deeper than 130 fsw, or using mixed-gas must have a diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply except when using a heavy-weight diving outfit or when diving in a physically confining area.
----

----

Preamble

Table of Contents
          - Introduction 
          - Scope 
          - Qualification 
          - Calculation of Tier 1 Capital and Total Qualifying Capital 
          - Calculation of Risk-Weighted Assets 
          - Operational Risk 
          - Disclosure 

List of Acronyms

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

Plain Language

OCC Executive Order 12866

OTS Executive Order 12866 Determination

OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

OTS Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

Proposed Regulatory Text

Table of Contents
        - Part I
        - General Provisions
        - Part II
        - Qualifying Capital
        - Part III
        - Qualification
        - Part IV
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for General Credit Risk
        - Part V 
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Securitization Exposures
        - Part VI
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Equity Exposures
        - Part VII
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Operational Risk
        - Part VIII
        - Disclosure

List of Subjects

Authority and Issuance

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

Billing Codes

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA) requires cost-benefit and other analyses for a rule that would include any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.  The current inflation-adjusted expenditure threshold is $119.6 million.  The requirements of the UMRA include assessing a rule�s effects on future compliance costs; particular regions or State, local, or tribal governments; communities; segments of the private sector; productivity; economic growth; full employment; creation of productive jobs; and the international competitiveness of U.S. goods and services.  The proposed rule qualifies as a significant regulatory action under the UMRA because its Federal mandates may result in the expenditure by the private sector of $119.6 or more in any one year.  As permitted by section 202(c) of the UMRA, the required analyses have been prepared in conjunction with the Executive Order 12866 analysis document titled Regulatory Impact Analysis for Risk-Based Capital Standards:  Revised Capital Adequacy Guidelines.  The analysis is available at the locations for viewing the OTS docket indicated in the ADDRESSES section above.

Basel II Capital AccordNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)

----

HomeBanking information and regulationAccessibilityContact us
Exhibit 32

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements

Each of, William
J. Reuter, Chief Executive Officer, and Drew K. Hostetter, Chief Financial Officer, of Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, based on his knowledge:

(1) The Companys periodic report containing financial statements on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: As of November 6, 2009



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  |  |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                        |  | 
|/s/ William J. Reuter   |  |  |  | /s/ Drew K. Hostetter  
|William J. Reuter       |  |  |  | Drew K. Hostetter
First Amendment to BJ Services Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.50 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 BJ SERVICES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, BJ SERVICES COMPANY, U.S.A. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the BJ SERVICES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan with respect to certain
new claims procedure rules based upon regulations issued by the Department of Labor; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company also desires to amend the Plan in certain other respects; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows and such amendments shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions
are inconsistent with the provisions of such amendments: 
  
 I. Effective as of
January 1, 2002: 
  
 1. Section 3.1(b) of the Plan shall be
deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 
  
 “(b) A Member who makes the maximum Cash or Deferred Contributions allowable under the Thrift Plan may elect to defer receipt of an amount not to exceed 20% of his Compensation, less his Cash or Deferred
Contributions to the Thrift Plan, for a Plan Year.” 
  
 2.
The reference to “Before-Tax Contributions” in Section 3.1(c) of the Plan shall be deleted and reference to “Cash or Deferred Contributions” shall be substituted therefor. 
  
 II. Effective for Plan benefit claims filed after January 1, 2002, Section 5.10 of the Plan
shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 
  
 “5.10 Claims Procedures. Claims for Plan benefits and reviews of Plan benefit claims which have been denied or modified will be processed in accordance with the written Plan claims procedures
established by the Committee, which procedures are hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Plan.” 
  
 III. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 
  
 EXECUTED this 20th day of December, 2002. 
  

			
	BJ SERVICES COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ T. M. Whichard

	 	 	Name: T. M. Whichard
	 	 	Title:   Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 308.101 [Reserved]
#### § 32.40-55 Insect screens—T/ALL.

Provisions shall be made to protect the crew quarters against the admission of insects.
# C_2013225EN.01003401.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/34

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-239/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)

2013/C 225/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: E. Paasivirta and G. Valero Jordana, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action seeking partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

Abdulrahim

Council and Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim’s action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim’s action for annulment;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

Nos. 02-1785

	02-1674

	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

	Appellee,

	v.

	WINSTON CUNNINGHAM,

	Defendant, Appellant.

	ORDER

	Entered March 2, 2004

	The government has moved for clarification as to whether the vacating of the conviction of Winston Cunningham, United States v. Casas et al., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 763, at *67 (1st Cir. Jan. 20, 2004), results in entry of a judgment of acquittal of Cunningham or whether the government is free to retry Cunningham.  The defendant has replied only that this court has no power even to clarify the earlier opinion because mandate has issued.  The argument is mistaken: there is no request to alter the judgment.  We instead are simply clarifying what should have been obvious from the opinion in order to avoid unnecessary confusion or delay in the proceedings on remand.  The government's motion is granted and we clarify.

	This court's opinion did not vacate with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.  Cunningham's conviction was vacated based on trial error in the admission of certain testimony by Agent Stoothoff.  This court did not hold that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but only that we could not say the trial error as to admission of evidence was harmless.  Indeed, Cunningham did not argue on appeal that this evidence was insufficient and so has waived the issue.  Nor was any other reason to prevent retrial presented to us.  Under such circumstances, there is no Double Jeopardy Clause bar to the government retrying Cunningham, should it choose to do so, upon the vacating of the conviction.  Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400, 402 (1987); Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 6 (1978); Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662, 672 (1896).  

	So ordered.			

								By the court,

								____/s/__________________

								Mark R. Syska,

								Chief Deputy Clerk

[Certified Copies Hon. Carmen Consuelo-Cerezo and Ms. Frances de Moran, Clerk, United States District Court for Puerto Rico. Copies to Ms. Silvers, Mr. Vega-Pacheco, Ms. Torres-Pabon, Mr. Perez-Sosa, Mr. Fernandez-Torres and Mr. Vazquez.]
§ 39.2014 Polymerizing cargoes safety—TB/ALL. ( a ) Common vapor headers for polymerizing cargoes must be constructed with adequate means to permit internal examination of vent headers.
( b ) Vapor piping systems and pressure-vacuum valves that are used for polymerizing cargoes must be inspected internally at least annually.
( c ) Pressure-vacuum valves and spill valves which are used for polymerizing cargoes must be tested for proper movement prior to each transfer.
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                             |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                      |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                                |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund VIII-B, L.P. |
|                                                            |
| March      27, 2009                                             |
|                                                            |
|                                                            |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                           |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                               |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of              |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                             |
| Managing      General Partner of                                |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund VIII-B, L.P. |
|                                                            |
| March      27, 2009                                             |
#### RICHARD MINOCHIAN ET AL., PROSECUTOR, v. CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANT.

Decided May 6, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the prosecutor, *Edward F. Merrey.*

Eor the defendant, *Benjamin J. Spitz.*

Per Curiam.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

Reported in 6 *N. J. Adv. R.*1905.
§ 32.53-10 General—T/ALL. ( a ) Each tankship to which this subpart applies must have an inert gas system that meets the requirements of this subpart and is approved in accordance with 46 CFR 50.20.
( b ) Each inert gas system must be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the provisions of SOLAS II-2, regulation 62, with the following provisions: ( 1 ) Acceptable types of water seals include the wet and semiwet type. Other types of seals may be accepted on a case by case basis if approval is given by the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center.
( 2 ) If a vapor collection system required to meet part 39 of this subchapter is connected to the inert gas system, the instruction manual required by SOLAS II-2, regulation 62.21 must include procedures relating to vapor collection operations.
[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3843, Jan. 26, 1976, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51198, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### § 30.10-13 Cofferdam—TB/ALL.

The term *cofferdam* means a void or empty space separating two or more compartments for the purpose of isolation or to prevent the contents of one compartment from entering another in the event of the failure of the walls of one to retain their tightness.
§ 35.05-15 Tank vessel security—TB/ALL. ( a ) *Manned tank vessel.* At least one member of the crew of a manned tank vessel shall be on board at all times except when the vessel is gas free or is moored at a dock or terminal at which watchman service is provided.
( b ) *Unmanned barge.* ( 1 ) The owner, managing operator, master, and person in charge of a vessel towing a tank barge that need not be manned, and each of them, shall be responsible for monitoring the security and integrity of the tank barge and for ensuring adherence to proper safety precautions. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to— ( i ) Ensuring that any tank barge added to the tow has all tank openings properly secured; has its freeing-ports and scuppers, if any, unobstructed; meets any loadline or freeboard requirements; and neither leaks cargo into the water, voids, or cofferdams nor leaks water into the tanks, voids, or cofferdams;
( ii ) Ensuring that every tank barge in the tow is properly secured within the tow;
( iii ) Ensuring that periodic checks are made of every tank barge in the tow for leakage of cargo into the water, voids, or cofferdams and for leakage of water into the tanks, voids, or cofferdams;
( iv ) Knowing the cargo of every tank barge in the tow, any hazards associated with the cargo, and what to do on discovery of a leak;
( v ) Ensuring that the crew of the vessel know the cargo of every tank barge in the tow, any hazards associated with the cargo, and what to do on discovery of a leak;
( vi ) Reporting to the Coast Guard any leaks from a tank barge in the tow into the water, as required by 33 CFR 151.15; and
( vii ) Ensuring that the crew of the vessel and other personnel in the vicinity of the tank barges in the tow follow the proper safety precautions for tank vessels, and that no activity takes place in the vicinity of the barges that could create a hazard.
( 2 ) When a barge is moored and contains more oil than the normal clingage and unpumpable bilge or sump residues, the barge must be kept under surveillance by a person responsible for the security of the barge and for keeping unauthorized persons off the barge.
( 3 ) When a barge is moored and contains no oil but is not gas free: ( i ) It must be maintained under surveillance as required in paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
( ii ) All cargo tank hatches must be clearly marked in not less than three inch lettering “Danger—Keep Out,” and all hatch covers must be closed and dogged down in such a way that the hatch cannot be opened by the use of bare hands alone.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16704, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 80-009,48 FR 36459, Aug. 11, 1983; CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17155, Apr. 4, 1995]