alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 195.40-1 Pilot boarding equipment. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76707 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) This section applies to each vessel that normally embarks or disembarks a pilot from a pilot boat or other vessel.
( b ) Each vessel must have suitable pilot boarding equipment available for use on each side of the vessel. If a vessel has only one set of equipment, the equipment must be capable of being easily transferred to and rigged for use on either side of the vessel.
( c ) Pilot boarding equipment must be capable of resting firmly against the vessel's side and be secured so that it is clear from overboard discharges.
( d ) Each vessel must have lighting positioned to provide adequate illumination for the pilot boarding equipment and each point of access.
( e ) Each vessel must have a point of access that has— ( 1 ) A gateway in the rails or bulwark with adequate handholds; or
( 2 ) Two handhold stanchions and a bulwark ladder that is securely attached to the bulwark rail and deck.
( f ) The pilot boarding equipment required by paragraph (b) of this section must include at least one pilot ladder approved under subpart 163.003 of this chapter. Each pilot ladder must be of a single length and capable of extending from the point of access to the water's edge during each condition of loading and trim, with an adverse list of 15°.
( g ) Whenever the distance from the water's edge to the point of access is more than 30 feet, access from a pilot ladder to the vessel must be by way of an accommodation ladder or equally safe and convenient means.
( h ) Pilot hoists, if used, must be approved under subpart 163.002 of this chapter.
[CGD 79-032, 49 FR 25455, June 21, 1984]
### Materials for 1 pm UA **RG/OMB Discussion RobertJ Wayland**  to : Nick Hutson, Kevin Culligan, fellner.christian, johnson.mary Cc : Alex Barron, Paul Balserak, DavidA Evans

From: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US To: Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, fellner.christian@epa.gov, johnson.mary@epa.gov Cc: Alex Barron/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, DavidA Evans/DC/USEPA/US@EPA All - Attached are the handouts for today's OMB discussion with UARG, which were provided by Bill W ehrum . I'm out of the office today, but will try to call - in if I can find a quiet place so that I'm not disruptive to the call. thanx! bob Robert J. W ay land, P h.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243 - 01 RTP, NC 2 7711 Phone: ( 919) 541 - 1045 Cell: ( 919) 306 - 2290 Fax: ( 919) 541 - 5450
e - ma il: way land.robertj@epa.gov
********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt *********************************************************

OM BFeb13.pdf
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF PATINA OIL & GAS CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350**

 

1. I, David J. Kornder, Chief Financial Officer of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the annual periodending December 31, 2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of thatsection. 

 

2. I further certify to the best of my knowledge that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosuredocument. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC. (the“Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers certifies,to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ Stephen L. Day     /s/ Michael W. Bruns    Stephen L. Day   Michael W. Bruns  President, Chief Executive Officer and Director   Chief Financial Officer  *(Principal Executive Officer)*   *(Principal Financial Officer)*         Date: November 13, 2007   Date: November 13, 2007
§ 34.01-5 Equipment installed but not required—TB/ALL. ( a ) Where firefighting equipment is not required, but is installed, the equipment and its installation must be of an approved type.
( b ) Use of non-approved fire detection systems may be acceptable as excess equipment provided that: ( 1 ) Components are listed and labeled by an independent, nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.7, and are designed, installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the manufacturer's specific guidance;
( 2 ) Installation conforms to the requirements of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter J (Electrical Engineering), especially the hazardous location electrical installation regulations in 46 CFR 111.105; and
( 3 ) Coast Guard plan review is completed for wiring plans.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16694, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48248, July 22, 2016]
# C_2012025EN.01002802.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 October 2011 — IVD GmbH & Co. KG v Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe

(Case C-526/11)

(2012/C 25/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: IVD GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant and respondent: Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe

Other party to the proceedings: WWF Druck + Medien GmbH

Question referred

Is a body governed by public law (here: professional association) within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1(9)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1)‘financed, for the most part, by the State ...’ or is it subject to ‘management supervision’ by the State, if:

| — | the body has the right by law to raise contributions from its members but does not set the amount of those contributions or the extent of the services to be financed thereby; |
| --- | --- |

—

the body has the right by law to raise contributions from its members but does not set the amount of those contributions or the extent of the services to be financed thereby;

| — | the fees regulations, however, require approval by the State? |
| --- | --- |

—

the fees regulations, however, require approval by the State?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 134, p. 114.

---
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 568
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 2 of 16 Pg ID 569
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 3 of 16 Pg ID 570
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 4 of 16 Pg ID 571
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 5 of 16 Pg ID 572
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 6 of 16 Pg ID 573
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 7 of 16 Pg ID 574
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 8 of 16 Pg ID 575
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 9 of 16 Pg ID 576
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 10 of 16 Pg ID 577
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 11 of 16 Pg ID 578
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 12 of 16 Pg ID 579
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 13 of 16 Pg ID 580
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 14 of 16 Pg ID 581
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 15 of 16 Pg ID 582
2:02-cv-72394-VAR Doc # 108 Filed 11/06/03 Pg 16 of 16 Pg ID 583
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27571-27572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2440]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (Eastern Time) May 22, 2007.

Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

Status: Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

Matters To Be Considered: 

Parts Open to the Public

    1. Approval of the minutes of the April 16, 2007 Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.

[[Page 27572]]

    b. Monthly Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.
    3. Old Business.
    a. Annual Statement.
    b. Dormant Accounts.
    c. Automatic Enrollment & Roth Update.

Parts Closed to the Public

    4. Security.

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 07-2440 Filed 5-14-07; 12:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
#### Catharine Phelan, *Appellant, v.*The City of Binghamton, *Respondent.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.;

Learned, P. J., dissenting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,412
<SECURITIES>                                 2,575,258
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,412
<PP&E>                                          18,131<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,664,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,306,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,258
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,328,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,664,572
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (572,743)<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (572,743)<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (572,743)<F2>
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (572,743)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (572,743)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
<FN>
<F1>Net of depreciation.
<F2>Includes general and administrative expenses.
</FN>


</TABLE>
5:15-cv-11647-JEL-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 05/19/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 12
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rick Berry, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ RICK BERRY          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Rick Berry              |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

May 9,2005

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by SandersMorris Harris Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 221.17 Sale of a documented vessel by order of a district court. ( a ) A Documented Vessel may be sold by order of a district court only to a Person eligible to own a Documented Vessel or to a mortgagee of the vessel. Unless waived by the Maritime Administrator, a Person purchasing the vessel pursuant to court order or from a mortgagee not eligible to document a vessel who purchased the vessel pursuant to a court order must document the vessel under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code.
( b ) A Person purchasing the vessel, pursuant to court order or from a mortgagee not eligible to document a vessel who purchased the vessel pursuant to a court order, and wishing to obtain waiver of the documentation requirement must submit a request including the reason therefor to the Vessel Transfer Officer.
( c ) ( 1 ) A mortgagee not eligible to own a Documented Vessel shall not operate, or cause operation of, the vessel in commerce. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the vessel may not be operated for any purpose without the prior written approval of the Maritime Administrator.
( 2 ) The Maritime Administrator hereby grants approval for a mortgagee not eligible to own a Documented Vessel to operate the vessel to the extent necessary for the immediate safety of the vessel or for repairs, drydocking or berthing changes, but only under the command of a Citizen of the United States.
[57 FR 23478, June 3, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 6881, Feb. 11, 1998]
§ 34.01-10 Protection for unusual arrangements or special products—TB/ALL. ( a ) The provisions of this part contemplate fire protection for tank vessels of conventional design carrying the usual liquid petroleum products in internal tanks. Whenever unusual arrangements exist or special cargoes are carried upon which the vessel's normal firefighting equipment will be ineffective, additional suitable firefighting equipment of approved type shall be carried.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

PETER H. MILLER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-70 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed February 16, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jean-Jacques A. Darius, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
§ 272.15 Execution of condition survey reports. Every survey report shall be signed by: ( a ) The Operator's representative, when designated pursuant to § 272.13(a), but only if that representative was in attendance during the survey;
( b ) The Operator's superintendent engineer or equivalent;
( c ) The marine surveyor who conducted the survey; and
( d ) The appropriate representative of the Region Office for the Region in which the survey was conducted.
#### Hugh Hanley and Pleas. Chance v. The State.

*No. 2863.*

*Decided February 15.*

Theft—Evidence—Charge of the Court.—Proof of the contemporaneous theft of other property than that for the theft of which the defendant is on trial is not admissible unless such proof conduces to establish identity in developing the *res gestee,*or to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstances connected with the theft, or to show the intent with which the defendant acted with respect to the property for the theft of which he is on trial. When such proof is admitted for either of the legitimate purposes indicated, the charge of the court must apprise the jury of the purpose of the proof, and that they can not convict defendant for the theft of any other property than that named in the indictment. In failing to so instruct the jury in this case, and in refusing a special charge to supply the omission, the trial court erred.

Appeal from the District Court of Victoria. Tried below before Hon. H. C. Pleasants.

The conviction was for cattle theft, and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of two years in the penitentiary.

*A. B. Petticolas*and *A. S. Thurmond,*for appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellants were tried and convicted for the theft of a cow, the property .of one Fagan. On the trial it was proved that eight other animals, belonging to other parties, were stolen in the same manner, if not at the same time. Defendants, by special instruction, asked the court to limit the purposes for which this evidence with regard to the theft of these other animals could and should only be considered by the jury, which instruction was refused, and the charge as given failed to apprise the jury of the only purposes of said proof. It was error to refuse the instruction.

"In a trial for theft it is not competent for the State to prove the theft of other property at the same time and place as the property in question, unless such proof conduces to establish identity in developing the *res gestee,*or to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstances connected with the theft, or to show the intent with which the accused acted with, respect to the property for the theft of which he is on trial. And when such proof is admitted for either of the legitimate purposes indicated, *376the charge of the court must apprise the jury of the purpose of the proof” (Kelley v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 262), and that they could not convict the defendant for the theft of any other property than that named in the indictment. Carter v. The State, 23 Texas Ct. App., 508; see also Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 1306, p. 268; Reno v. The State, 25 Texas Ct. App., 102; Gentry v. The State, 25 Texas Ct. App., 614.

Judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Hurt, J., absent.
#### § 185.100 General requirement.

A vessel must be operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and in such a manner as to afford adequate precaution against hazards that might endanger the vessel and the persons being transported.
# C_2012184EN.01002004.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/20

---

Order of the General Court of 3 May 2012 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)

(Case T-561/11) (1)

1

2012/C 184/42

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

1

---
[Civ. No. 10860.

First Appellate District, Division One.

June 6, 1939.]

#### FRANK L. LAWRENCE et al., Respondents, v. JOSEPH ROSENBERG et al., Appellants.

*197Clyde C. Sherwood for Appellants.

Perry Evans for Respondents.

WARD, J.

This is an action for services rendered by a customs attorney in the recovery of duties, upon certain commodities, paid to the United States customs service under protest. The amount of the claim, which is not disputed, was assigned by Frank L. Lawrence to the partnership of Lawrence & Tuttle.

The Rosenberg Iron & Metal Company, conducted by the Rosenbergs, operated a rag department as an adjunct to its business. From 1921 until 1927 this department was operated as a copartnership under the fictitious name of National Sanitary Rag Company. In 1927, the National Sanitary Rag Company was incorporated and the stock issued to the members of the old partnership. The protest claims involved in this remained in the name of the Rosenberg Iron & Metal Company, by which company they were originally made.

Appellants’ contention is that upon the date of the contract of employment the partnership had terminated and its interests and assets had been transferred to the corporation, which would be responsible for the debt. It is not denied that Lawrence had been engaged to represent the partnership, and there is evidence to show that when the partners incorporated, the activities of Lawrence were continued with the approval of the corporation, and with the knowledge and consent of the members of the copartnership. Whether there was reasonable notice of the retirement of the copartners from the rag business as a copartnership, and of their formation of a corporation for conducting the same business, were questions of fact.

*198Lawrence as a witness testified that one of the copartners of the Rosenberg Iron & Metal Company employed him in connection with the transaction involved, namely, the obtaining of refunds for customs duties paid under protest. The manager of the corporation also discussed with him the various phases of the subject; that is, the “handling of the Rosenberg interests in imported rags under the tariff act of 1922”. This testimony is not contradicted unless it should be claimed that from certain documentary evidence a contrary conclusion could be reached. The trial court found that “the appearance of plaintiffs as attorneys of record for defendants in the United States Customs Court in regard to protests of the defendants against the collection of customs duties charged to the defendants was with the knowledge and consent of the defendants”. This finding is supported by the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Knight, Acting P. J., concurred.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.132-23 Procedure for approval of design or material change. ( a ) Each change in design, material, or construction from the plans approved under 46 CFR 159.005-13 and § 160.132-13(h) of this subpart must be approved by the Commandant before being used in any production davit. The manufacturer must submit any such change following the procedures in § 160.132-9 of this subpart, but documentation on items that are unchanged from the plans approved under 46 CFR 159.005-13 and § 160.115-13(h) of this subpart need not be resubmitted.
( b ) Unless determined by the Commandant to be unnecessary, a prototype davit with each change described in paragraph (a) of this section must be made and tested according to the procedures for new approvals in §§ 160.132-9 through 160.132-13 of this subpart.
( c ) Determinations of equivalence of design, construction, and materials will be made by the Commandant only.