alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 174.007 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* It is also available for inspection at Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-2), Attn: Naval Architecture Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also from the sources listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ( 1 ) ASTM F 1196-00, Standard Specification for Sliding Watertight Door Assemblies, 2008, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved for § 174.100.
( 2 ) ASTM F 1197-00, Standard Specification for Sliding Watertight Door Control Systems, 2007, IBR approved for § 174.100.
( c ) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, + 44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org/ .* ( 1 ) Resolution MSC.216(82), Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 1974, As Amended (IMO Res. MSC.216(82)), Adopted on 8 December 2006, IBR approved for § 174.360.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78086, Dec. 14, 2010, as amended by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59788, Oct. 1, 2012; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60164, Sept. 30, 2013]
#### § 131.710 Approved work vests.

Each buoyant work vest carried aboard must be approved under subpart 160.053 of this chapter or, as a commercial hybrid personal flotation device, under subpart 160.077 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.105-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Manufacturers that desire type approval should submit a written notice to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) describing the product and its intended uses. The Commandant will evaluate this information and notify the manufacturer of the product's suitability for testing. The manufacturer should then contract directly with an accepted independent laboratory to perform the required tests and inspections.
( b ) Upon completion of the required testing and inspections, the manufacturer must submit either a written request for type approval to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), United States Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, or electronically submit a request to *typeapproval@uscg.mil .* The request must indicate the name and address of the manufacturer, all product designations, and the address of all manufacturing facilities. The request must include a copy of the final fire test report and the production inspection procedures. From the information submitted, the Commandant determines whether or not the product is acceptable for type approval. If the product is determined to be acceptable, a type approval certificate valid for a 5-year period will be issued. If the product is not accepted, the manufacturer will be notified of the reasons why.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

GERALD LEE ROGERS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2193 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 30, 2019. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge. Kathleen A. Smith, Public Defender and Nicole Calderone, Assistant Public Defender, Ft. Myers, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Lee Rogers filed this petition for writ of certiorari to review an order adjudging him incompetent to proceed to trial and compelling him to undergo competency restoration training. The order was entered based on written reports by- 2 -

two experts "and others." The trial court denied Mr. Roger's motion for a competency hearing. A petition for writ of certiorari is the proper method to seek review of the failure to hold a competency hearing. See Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The State properly concedes that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) requires the trial court to conduct a competency hearing prior to issuing a written order determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed. See Simmons v. State, 271 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (remarking that the State correctly conceded that the trial court's failure to hold a competency hearing and enter a written order was fundamental error); see also Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 677 (Fla. 2014) ("Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210–3.212 were enacted to set forth the required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed or has been restored to competency."); Williams v. State, 169 So. 3d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("Under the plain language of rule 3.210(b), the terms 'shall' and 'immediately' reflect that a hearing is mandatory." (citing Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 677)). Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order adjudging Mr. Rogers incompetent to proceed to trial.

Petition granted; order quashed.

MORRIS, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 10.4



 



Exhibit 10.4



RESTATED AMENDMENT

TO THE KEYCORP

EXCESS CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN



     WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan (the “Plan”), a
nonqualified plan of deferred compensation for a certain select group of KeyCorp employees, and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has authorized its Compensation Committee to permit
amendments to the Plan, and



     WHEREAS, in conjunction with the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of KeyCorp determined it desirable to preserve
those earned and vested Plan benefits of December 31, 2004 in accordance with the law in effect
prior to the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and accordingly, has authorized
the freezing of the Plan to preserve such vested Plan benefits as of December 31, 2004, and



     WHEREAS, to effectuate a simplified administration of those December 31, 2004 vested and
frozen Plan benefits in accordance with the laws in effect prior to the enactment of the Act, as
well as to comply with the requirements of the Act with regard to those participant Plan benefits
that have not vested as of December 31, 2004, the Compensation Committee has accordingly directed
the establishment of a KeyCorp Second Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to such action of the Compensation Committee, the Amendment to the
Plan is hereby restated to clarify that in conjunction with the freezing of the Plan, participants’
not vested Plan benefits as of December 31, 2004 shall be transferred to the KeyCorp Second Excess
Cash Balance Pension Plan effective January 1, 2005, as follows:



	 	 	 
	          1.

	 	A new Article XI has been added to the Plan to
provide the following:
	 
	

	 	“ARTICLE XI

AMENDMENT TO FREEZE
	 
	

	 	11.1 No New Accruals, Deferrals, and Contributions Under the Plan. As
of January 1, 2005 the Plan shall be frozen with regard to all new accruals,
deferrals, and contributions to the Plan after December 31, 2004 and all
Participants’ Plan benefits that are earned and vested as of December 31, 2004
shall be administered in accordance with the terms of the Plan as frozen and
with the requirements of the law in effect prior to the enactment of Section
409A of the Code. In conjunction with the foregoing, all Participants’ not
vested Plan benefits as of December 31, 2004 shall be transferred to the
KeyCorp Second Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan effective January 1, 2005 and
shall be administered in accordance with the requirements of the KeyCorp
Second Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan.
	 
	          2.

	 	The amendment set forth in Paragraphs 1 shall be effective as of December 31, 2004.
	 
	          3.

	 	Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.







     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Restated Amendment to the Plan to be executed by
its duly authorized officer on January 20, 2005, to be effective as of December 28, 2004.



	 	 	 
	

	 	KEYCORP
	 
	

	 	By: /s/ Thomas E. Helfrich
	

	 	 
	 
	

	 	Title: Executive Vice President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIELLE SCOTT,

 

Petitioner, Case No. 2:15-cv-11250

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.

BONITA HOFFNER,

Respondent.

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

EQUITABLE TOLLING [Dkt. Nos. 3 and 4]

On April 1, 2015, Petitioner Danielle Scott, a state inmate, filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in

violation of his constitutional rights. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motions

to appoint counsel and for equitable tolling. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will deny the motions without prejudice.

The constitutional right to counsel in criminal proceedings provided by the

Sixth Amendment does not apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus, which

is a civil proceeding. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003), reh. denied, 539 U.S. 970 (2003). The Court has broad

discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin,

2:15-cv-11250-MFL-APP Doc # 10 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 147
822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation

at any stage of the case "[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court

determines that the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In this

case, the Court has yet to receive a response from Respondent to the petition. The

Court therefore finds that it is premature to determine whether justice requires

appointment of counsel. The Court will reconsider this request on its own motion

when it reviews the answer and state court record.

Similarly, with respect to Petitioner’s motion for equitable tolling, it is

unknown whether Respondent will argue that the petition was untimely filed or how

it will respond to the argument that Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling due to his

mental illness. The Court will consider Petitioner’s arguments for equitable tolling

along with any arguments raised by Respondent in its answer. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of

counsel and for equitable tolling are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Matthew F. Leitman

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 6, 2015

-2-

2:15-cv-11250-MFL-APP Doc # 10 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 148
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on October 6, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary

mail.

s/Holly A. Monda

Case Manager

(313) 234-5113

-3-

2:15-cv-11250-MFL-APP Doc # 10 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 149
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT
                                   ITEM 11

            Statement Reference Computation of Per Share Earnings


     Primary earnings (loss) per share amounts were computed on the basis of the
weighted average number of shares of common stock during the year. The weighted
average number of shares used for this computation was 1,222,822 for 2000,
1,166,134 for 1999 and 1,153,070 for 1998, and 1,165,964 for 1997, and 1,174,829
for 1996.

     Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share amounts were computed on the basis
of the weighted average number of shares of common stock and common stock
equivalents outstanding during the year. Common stock equivalents include
employee stock options. The weighted average number of shares used for this
computation was 1,430,071, 1,399,500, 1,358,169, 1,378,450 and 1,378,316, in
2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, and 1996, respectively.
THIS PLACE-HOLDER PAGE REPLACES THE

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT CLAIMED CBI 

(54 PAGES)
# C_2013108EN.01000801.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/8

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Saupiquet SAS v European Commission

(Case C-37/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Common customs tariff - Tariff quota - Sunday closure of customs offices - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment - Accountability)

2013/C 108/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Saupiquet SAS (represented by: R. Ledru, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009, holding that refunding import duties on canned tuna fish originating in Thailand to the appellant is not justified — Closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Incorrect interpretation

Saupiquet

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Saupiquet SAS is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Saupiquet SAS is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

 Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

883 

CA 16-00551 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

 

 

CAROL J. KOBRIN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 120337.) 

 

HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (DIANE R. TIVERON OF COUNSEL), FOR 

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), 

FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson, J.), 

entered July 6, 2015. The order dismissed the claim. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously 

affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant appeals from an order granting defendant=s 

motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Contrary to claimant=s 

contention, we conclude that the Court of Claims properly granted 

defendant=s motion based on claimant=s failure to plead the Atotal sum 

claimed@ (Court of Claims Act ' 11 [b]; see Kolnacki v State of New York, 

8 NY3d 277, 280-281, rearg denied 8 NY3d 994; Lepkowski v State of New 

York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207). There must be strict compliance with the 

pleading requirements contained in Court of Claims Act ' 11 (b) (see

Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 280-281; Lepkowski, 1 NY3d at 206-207). 

ANotwithstanding [claimant=s] argument that >the total sum claimed= does 

not necessarily have to be a dollar figure, it is clear that her 

claimCentirely lacking any amount of monetary damagesCfailed to satisfy 

the requirements of the statute@ (Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 280).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 99.16

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F
(the Form 40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Development Project  Cigar Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources and
Governance  Interest of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 dated February 22, 2013 for the Cigar Lake property; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the headings Our Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Development Project  Cigar Lake and Mineral Reserves and
Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2012 dated February 11, 2013 for the Cigar Lake property,
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from
the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical
Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan, registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership
Plan and registration statement (No. 333-181577) on Form F-10.

Sincerely,



|                        |  |                                                              
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Grant J. H. Goddard
|Name:                   |  | Grant J. H. Goddard, P. Eng.                                 
|Title:                  |  | Vice-President, Saskatchewan Mining North, Cameco Corporation
|                        | 
|Date:                   |  | February 22, 2013
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.01-40 Passengers or persons in addition to crew on cargo or tank vessels. ( a ) Under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3304, a documented vessel transporting cargo may be allowed by its certificate of inspection to carry not more than 12 individuals in addition to the crew on international voyages and not more than 16 individuals in addition to the crew on other voyages.
( b ) The application for permission to carry persons in addition to the crew may be included in the application described in § 2.01-1. If granted it is endorsed on the certificate of inspection.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51195, Sept. 30, 1997]
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.10-115 Changes in vessel service. ( a ) If a vessel certificated for a single service, changes service, the annual vessel inspection fee is not adjusted during the year in which a change in service occurs. The annual vessel inspection fee for the new vessel category is payable on the vessel's user fee anniversary date immediately following the date of the change in service.
( b ) If a change in service occurs and the annual vessel inspection fee has been prepaid, Commandant (CG-DCO-83) will recalculate the prepayment amount based on the new vessel category and advise the owner of available prepayment options.
[CGD 91-030, 60 FR 13563, Mar. 13, 1995, as amended by CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50459, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50725, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58341, Sept. 30, 2004 ; USCG-2010-0759, 75 FR 60000, Sept. 29, 2010]
# C_2012032EN.01003902.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/39

---

Action brought on 6 December 2011 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (B BERG)

(Case T-631/11)

2012/C 32/78

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 2014/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 2014/2010-1;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Caventa AG.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘B BERG’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Christian Berg’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 25 and 35.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: There is no similarity between the goods at issue and no likelihood of confusion of the signs at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

F.B., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2045

[April 15, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Darren Steele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432020CJ000084A.

Crystal J. Marsh of Marsh Law Firm, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, KLINGENSMITH, and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.