alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### FEB 2 6 1992


## Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585



### FEB 2 6 1992

Mr. Howard S. Geller American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 1001 Connecticut Avenue Suite 801 Washington, DC 20036



### Mr. Peter Miller Natural Resources Defense Council 90 New Montgomery Suite 620 San Francisco, CA 94105

Mr. Robert M. Gants Vice President Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 200 Dangerfield Road Alexandria, VA 22314

Gentlemen:

This is in further response to your joint letter of October 30, 1991, which requested that the Department of Energy separate the rulemaking to revise the 1994 standard for clothes washers from our nine-product rulemaking (CE-RM-90-201) and delay issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking until 1995.

Having reviewed the material presented in this matter in light of governing provisions of law, 42 U.S.C. 6.295, and based on the information in the record, I have determined that it is appropriate to conduct the clothes washers rulemaking on a separate and later schedule. The notice of proposed rulemaking for clothes washers is now scheduled to be issued in 1995.

As you pointed out in your joint letter, the next revised standard on clothes washers cannot take effect before 1999 (five years after the 1994 standard becomes effective). By waiting until 1995 to issue the notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE will be able to consider the impact of the 1994 standard, including its affect on economic and technological considerations.It is significant to DOE that groups representing manufacturers,

environmentalists and energy efficiency advocates have joined together in requesting this change. We remain concerned, however, that this change could reduce the amount of time that manufacturers would have to comply with more stringent standards, should they be promulgated. We hope that retooling time will not become an issue when a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued in 1995.

Sincerely,

Michael Davis, P.E. ssistant Secretary Conservation and Renewable Energy
###### Editorial Note on Part 199

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 199.500 General.

This subpart sets out requirements in addition to the requirements in subparts A, B, C, and D of this part applicable to vessels not subject to SOLAS.
#### § 385.40 Disputes.

Procedures for resolution of disputes between a recipient and MarAd appear in the standard general provisions of the grant and cooperative agreements referenced in § 385.62, of this part.
Editorial Note on Part 356
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 356 appear at 68 FR 5576, Feb. 4, 2003.

§ 356.15 Filing of affidavit of U.S. Citizenship. ( a ) New owners of Fishing Industry Vessel after October 1, 2001, must file the Affidavit of U.S. Citizenship and other required documentation with the Citizenship Approval Officer in order for the Citizenship Approval Officer to make a determination whether the owner is eligible to own a vessel with a fishery endorsement to the vessel's documentation. A vessel may not receive a fishery endorsement to its documentation or operate in the fisheries of the United States before this determination has been made.
( b ) If the Citizenship Approval Officer believes that there is a defect in the Affidavit of U.S. Citizenship or the supporting documentation, the applicant will be notified and will be given an opportunity to work with the Citizenship Approval Officer to resolve the matter before a determination is made whether the applicant qualifies as a U.S. Citizen.
( c ) A vessel owner that has a valid fishery endorsement prior to October 1, 2001, must obtain a citizenship determination from the Citizenship Approval Officer no later than October 1, 2001, which states that the owner is a U.S. Citizen eligible to own a vessel with a fishery endorsement. If the owner obtains the required determination from the Citizenship Approval Officer, the fishery endorsement will remain valid and will be subject to renewal at the time of its next regularly scheduled annual filing to document the vessel with the Coast Guard, at which point the owner will be required to obtain an annual ruling from the MARAD's Citizenship Approval Officer that it is still a U.S. Citizen. If a vessel owner that owns a vessel with a valid fishery endorsement prior to October 1, 2001, does not obtain the required determination from the Citizenship Approval Officer by October 1, 2001, the vessel's fishery endorsement may be deemed invalid. In order to obtain a new fishery endorsement, the vessel owner will be required to obtain a citizenship determination from the Citizenship Approval Officer and to apply to the U.S. Coast Guard for a new fishery endorsement.
( d ) The owner of a Fishing Industry Vessel or a prospective owner of such a vessel may request a letter ruling from the Citizenship Approval Officer in order to determine whether the owner under a proposed ownership structure will qualify as a U.S. Citizen that is eligible to document the vessel with a fishery endorsement. A complete request for a letter ruling must be accompanied by an Affidavit of U.S. Citizenship and all other documentation required by “ 356.13. The Citizenship Approval Officer will issue a letter ruling based on the ownership structure that is proposed; however, the Citizenship Approval Officer reserves the right to reverse the determination if any of the elements of the ownership structure, contractual arrangements, or other material relationships are altered when the vessel owner submits the executed Affidavits and supporting documentation.
[65 FR 44877, July 19, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 5579, Feb. 4, 2003]
# C_2012089EN.01002402.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/24

---

Order of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — MasterCard and Others v European Commission

(Case T-330/11) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods - Documents drawn up by a third party - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 89/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: MasterCard Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington), MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission to refuse the applicants access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the ‘costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
§ 194.05-15 Compressed gases as chemical stores—Detail requirements. ( a ) Compressed gases as chemical stores and reagents are governed by subparts 194.15 and 194.20.
( b ) Other compressed gases are regulated in accordance with the appropriate portions of 49 CFR parts 172, 173, and 176 or part 147 of Subchapter N (Dangerous Cargoes) of this chapter.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1151, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36027, Sept. 16, 1988]
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 20, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: July 9, 2014 Presentation to Oklahoma state agencies and coal-fired utilities 

regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A presentation was made by EPA to the Oklahoma state agencies and coal-fired utilities 

and the attendees listed below on July 9, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014. The meeting was held in 

Oklahoma City, OK.

ATTENDEES

Participants: Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Energy and the Environment (Tyler Powell 

and Craig Sundstrom), Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (Leon 

Ashford, Beverly Botchlet-Smith, Cheryl Bradley, Braxton Edwards, Artisha Hicks, 

Joyce Sheedy, Rob Singletary, Eddie Terrill, Scott Thomas, and Randy Ward), 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Nicole King), Grand River Dam Authority 

(Mike Bednar and Nathan Reese), Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (Gerald 

Butcher and Kent Fletcher), American Electric Power / Public Service of 

Oklahoma (AEP/PSO) (Bud Ground), and Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OGE) (Usha 

Turner, Kimber Shoop, and Brian McQuown)

EPA Participants: Mark Hansen, Terry Johnson, Clovis Steib, and Rob Lawrence (Region 6) 

and Kristen Bremer, Brian Fisher, and Chris Sherry (OAR)
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20094 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

VERDELL KENNEDY, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO MODIFY 

RESTITUTION PAYMENT PLAN (ECF No. 307) 

 Defendant Verdell Kennedy is a federal inmate incarcerated at the Ashland 

Federal Correctional Institution. When the Court sentenced Kennedy in this case, it 

ordered him to pay $888,618.19 in restitution. (See Judgment, ECF No. 223, 

PageID.908.) The Court also ordered Kennedy to participate in the Inmate Financial 

Responsibility Program (the “IFRP”). (See id., PageID.910.) Part of the IFRP 

includes establishing a payment plan so that Kennedy can make progress towards 

the amount he owes in restitution. (See id.) 

 On January 7, 2021, Kennedy filed a written request in which he asks the 

Court to “adjust[]” the payment established by the IFRP to $25.00 per quarter. (Req., 

ECF No. 307.) The Government objects to Kennedy’s request. (See Resp., ECF No. 

312.) 

Case 2:15-cr-20094-MFL-EAS ECF No. 313, PageID.1572 Filed 02/02/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

 The Court has carefully reviewed Kennedy’s request to modify his IFRP 

payment amount and DENIES it for the reasons stated in the Government’s 

response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: February 2, 2021 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 February 2, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 2:15-cr-20094-MFL-EAS ECF No. 313, PageID.1573 Filed 02/02/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 196.34-20 Shipboard inspections. ( a ) Each work vest shall be subject to examination by a marine inspector to determine its serviceability. If found to be satisfactory, it may be continued in service, but shall not be stamped by a marine inspector with a Coast Guard stamp. If a work vest is found not to be in a serviceable condition, then such work vest shall be removed from the vessel. If a work vest is beyond repair, it shall be destroyed or mutilated in the presence of a marine inspector so as to prevent its continued use as a work vest.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THOMAS F. KANE,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellees.

§

§ No. 569, 2017

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID 0612001862

§ 

§

Submitted: January 31, 2018

 Decided: March 14, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

This 14th day of March 2018, upon consideration of the appellant’s

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it 

appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Thomas F. Kane, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s order denying his motion to reopen his criminal conviction 

and sentence under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). The State has filed a 

motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 

manifest on the face of Kane’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. 

We agree and affirm.
2

(2) Kane pled guilty but mentally ill in 2008 to Murder in the First 

Degree and other related offenses. In exchange for his plea, Kane avoided a 

possible death sentence, and the State dismissed ten other charges. The 

Superior Court immediately sentenced Kane to life imprisonment under 11 

Del. C. § 4209(a), plus a term of twenty-seven years. Kane did not file a 

direct appeal. In 2012, Kane filed a motion for postconviction relief, which 

the Superior Court denied. We affirmed that judgment on appeal.1

(3) On August 24, 2017, Kane filed a motion under Civil Rule 

60(b) to reopen his criminal conviction and sentence. On September 22, 

2017, the Superior Court denied Kane’s motion because the relief he 

requested was not properly sought under Civil Rule 60(b) and because 

Kane’s convictions and sentence were the result of a guilty plea. This 

appeal followed.

(4) Kane argues in his opening brief on appeal that he has a right to 

seek relief from his criminal convictions under Civil Rule 60(b) and that he 

is entitled to have his convictions and sentence vacated in light of this 

Court’s decision in Rauf v. State.

2

 

1 Kane v. State, 2016 WL 1165949 (Del. Mar. 17, 2016).

2 Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016).
3

(5) Kane is wrong on both counts. Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) 

cannot be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction.3 Superior Court 

Criminal Rule 61 provides the exclusive remedy for setting aside a final 

criminal conviction.4 Moreover, this Court’s decision in Rauf did not 

invalidate the life sentence provision of Section 4209(a), pursuant to which 

Kane was sentenced.5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

 

3

Jackson v. State, 2007 WL 2231072, *1 (Del. Aug. 2, 2007).

4

See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2) (2018).

5 Zebroski v. State, __ A.3d __, 2018 WL 559678 (Del. Jan. 25, 2018).
§ 196.15-7 Verification of vessel compliance with applicable stability requirements. ( a ) After loading and prior to departure and at all other times necessary to assure the safety of the vessel, the master shall determine that the vessel complies with all applicable stability requirements in the vessel's trim and stability book, stability letter, Certificate of Inspection, and Load Line Certificate, as the case may be, and then enter an attestation statement of the verification in the log book. The vessel may not depart until it is in compliance with these requirements.
( b ) When determining compliance with applicable stability requirements the vessel's draft, trim, and stability must be determined as necessary and any stability calculations made in support of the determination must be retained on board the vessel for the duration of the voyage.
[CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41828, Sept. 11, 1992]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statement Nos. 333-03703, 333-27009, 333-28147, 333-53667,333-85791, 333-36478, 333-40038, 333-43838, 333-67868, 333-85884, and 333-109314 of i2 Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8, the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to registration statements Nos. 333-31342 and333-96341 and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to registration statement No. 333-59106 of the Company on Form S-3 and registration statement No. 333-49180 of the Company on Form S-3 of our report dated March 12, 2004 (which expresses anunqualified opinion), appearing in the annual report on Form 10-K of i2 Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

March 12, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRYSLER GROUP, L.L.C., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 15-11445

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff William Sanders filed a pro se complaint and application to proceed without

prepayment of fees April 21, 2015. Upon reviewing the application, the court finds that Sanders is

unable to pay the fees associated with the filing of his complaint. Therefore, the court will grant the

application.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court, however, must dismiss Sanders’ complaint,

as the court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. “[I]t is well established that

federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the

Constitution and statute.” Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir. 2003). “A court lacking

jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any state of the proceedings in

which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.” Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1169 (6th

Cir. 1994).

District courts have jurisdiction over civil actions: 1) between citizens of different states where

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,

or 2) alleging the deprivation of a constitutional right or a violation of the laws and treaties of the

5:15-cv-11445-JCO-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 06/02/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1). In this case plaintiff Sanders has failed to assert

federal subject matter jurisdiction either by diversity of citizenship or federal question. Lacking

jurisdiction, this court must dismiss the action.

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff William Sanders’ application to proceed without

prepayment of fees is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of federal subject matter

jurisdiction.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 2, 2015

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

on this date, June 2, 2015, using first-class U.S. mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-11445-JCO-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 06/02/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER D. SCHILLING, ET AL,,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CMS ENERGY CORP, ET AL,

Defendant(s).

 /

Civil Action No. 02-72834

District Judge George Caram Steeh

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Without Prejudice their

Motion to Compel Production of Withheld Memorandum filed August 26, 2005. Counsel for the

moving party advises the Court that the parties are working on resolving the above matter. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw without Prejudice IS 

GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of 

Withheld Memorandum is deemed WITHDRAWN without Prejudice. If the Motion to Compel 

cannot otherwise be fully resolved by the parties, the motion may be renewed by refiling.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 s/Virginia M. Morgan 

VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies sent by U.S. mail or electronic means this date to:

Barry Adler, Thomas Cox, Ellen M. Doyle, Fred Herrmann, Cornish Hitchcock, Todd Holleman, Krista Lenart,

Derek Loeser, J Brian McTigue, Gregory Y. Porter, Joseph J. Reilly, James K. Robinson, Richard A. Rossman,

William Sankbeil, Neil Steiner, Michael G. Wilson, James E. Brunner, Samuel C. Damren, Philip Kessler, Lewis J.

Liman, Bruce F. Rinaldi, Lynn Sarko

2:02-cv-72834-GCS Doc # 186 Filed 09/20/05 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2993
#### § 188.10-61 Rivers.

Under this designation shall be included all vessels whose navigation is restricted to rivers and/or canals exclusively, and to such other waters as may be so designated by the Coast Guard District Commander.
#### § 32.70-20 Pump-engine compartment—TB/ALL.

No cofferdam will be required between a cargo tank and a compartment containing pumping engines and their auxiliaries which are used exclusively during pumping operations, provided the pumping engine compartment contains no cargo valves and is well ventilated and provided further that internal combustion exhaust within the compartment are completely water jacketed or insulated and that gasoline engine intakes are fitted with effective flame arresters.
#### § 386.7 Disturbances.

Any loitering, disorderly conduct or other conduct on Academy property which creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance which unreasonably obstructs the use of any area, including entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots; or impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employees or Midshipmen activities is prohibited.
---

---

Exhibit 13

CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF 
FINANCIAL OFFICER

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 
RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE
15d-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT 
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Cimatron Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Dan Haran, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Ilan Erez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)/Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Dated: June 29,
2009

| |  | By: /s/ Dan Haran
Dan HaranPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Ilan Erez 
Ilan ErezChief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### Milton H. Smith, *Appellant, v.*John G. Wagner and another, Respondents.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Hardin, J.