alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 296.50 Administrative determinations. ( a ) *Policy.* A Contractor who disagrees with the findings, interpretations or decisions of the Maritime Administration or the Contracting Officer with respect to the administration of this part or any other dispute or complaint concerning MSP Operating Agreements may submit an appeal to the Administrator. Such appeals shall be made in writing to the Secretary, within 60 days following the date of the document notifying the Contractor of the administrative determination of the Contracting Officer. Such an appeal should be addressed to the Maritime Administrator, Attn.: MSP Operating Agreement Appeals, Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Such an appeal is a prerequisite to exhausting administrative remedies.
( b ) *DOD determinations.* The MSA 2003 assigns joint and separate roles and responsibilities to the Secretary and to the SecDef. The Administrator and the Commander will make joint and separate findings, interpretations, and decisions necessary to implement the MSA 2003. A Contractor who disagrees with the initial findings, interpretations or decisions regarding the implementation of the MSA 2003—whether joint or separate in nature—shall communicate such disagreement to the Contracting Officer. Any disagreement or dispute of a Contractor may, where appropriate, be transferred to the Director, Policy and Plans, U.S. Transportation Command (Director), for resolution. A Contractor who disagrees with the findings, interpretations, or decisions of the Director, with respect to the administration of this part, may submit an appeal to the Commander. Such an appeal shall be made in writing to the Commander within 60 days following the date of the document notifying the Contractor of the administrative determination of the Director. Such an appeal should be addressed to the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, 508 Scott Drive, Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225-5357.
( c ) *Process.* The Administrator, or the Commander in the case of a DOD determination, may require the person making the request to furnish additional information, or proof of factual allegations, and may order any proceeding appropriate in the circumstances. The decision of the Administrator, or the Commander in the case of a DOD determination, shall be final.
§ 176.910 Passenger Ship Safety Certificate. ( a ) A vessel, which carries more than 12 passengers on an international voyage must have a valid SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate. The Commandant authorizes the cognizant OCMI to issue the original SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate after receiving notification from the cognizant OCMI that the vessel complies with the applicable SOLAS regulations. Subsequent SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificates are issued by the cognizant OCMI unless any changes to the vessel or its operations have occurred which changes the information on the certificate, in which case the Commandant will authorize the cognizant OCMI to reissue the certificate.
( b ) The route specified on the Certificate of Inspection and the SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate must agree.
( c ) A SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate is issued for a period of not more than 12 months.
( d ) The SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate may be withdrawn, revoked, or suspended at any time when the vessel is not in compliance with applicable SOLAS requirements.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
#### § 308.505 General.

The Maritime Administrator is prepared to provide an open cargo war risk insurance policy covering any cargoes described in § 308.501. The policy will be in the standard form of War Risk Open Cargo Policy, Form MA-300, prescribed in § 308.517. All policies will be issued by underwriting agents appointed by the Maritime Administrator. All underwriting agents will be domestic insurance companies authorized to do a marine insurance business in a State of the United States.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending August 19, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.013-2 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain materials are incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than the one listed in paragraph (b) of this section, notice of change must be published in the Federal Register and the material made available to the public. All approved material incorporated by reference may be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also available from the source indicated in paragraph (b) of this section. 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 .*
( b ) The materials approved for incorporation by reference in this subpart, and the sections affected are as follows: Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., P.O. Box 13995, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995 (Phone (919) 549-1400; Facsimile: (919) 549-1842). UL 1191, Standards for Components for Personal Flotation Devices, May 16, 1995—164.013-3; 160.013-5.
1(c) *Copies on file.* Copies of the specifications and letter of acceptance shall be kept on file by the manufacturer. [CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51216, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60162, Sept. 30, 2013]
#### § 188.10-45 Marine inspector or inspector.

These terms mean any person from the civilian or military branch of the Coast Guard assigned under the superintendence and direction of an Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, or any other person as may be designated for the performance of duties with respect to the inspections, enforcement, and administration of Subtitle II of Title 46, U.S. Code, Title 46 and Title 33 U.S. Code, and regulations issued under these statutes.

[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51219, Sept. 30, 1997]
<PAGE>   1
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2

                                     TO THE

                        LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

                             2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         This Amendment No. 2 (the "Amendment") to the Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is made effective as of
this 14th day of February, 2001.

         Pursuant to resolutions of the Executive Committee of the Board of
Directors of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (the "Company") dated February
14, 2001, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by increasing to
27,000,000 the number of shares of the Company's Common Stock, par value $0.01
per share, reserved for issuance under the Plan.

         Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of the
Plan shall remain unchanged.




                               LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.



                               By:  /s/  Avi Katz
                                     Name:  Avi Katz
                                     Title:  Vice President, General Counsel and
                                             Secretary
§ 32.56-50 Combustible veneers—T/ALL. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section combustible veneers on bulkheads, linings, and ceilings within accommodation, service, or control spaces must be 2 millimeters (.079 inches) or less in thickness.
( b ) Veneers on bulkheads, linings, and ceilings in concealed spaces, corridors, stairway enclosures, or control spaces must be an approved interior finish material or a reasonable number of coats of paint.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES EDKINS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10615 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #26) 

(2) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS AS DEFENDANT 

MATTHEW SCOTT DUBOIS (ECF #21); AND (3) DENYING MATTHEW 

SCOTT DUBOIS’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #13) AS MOOT 

On June 9, 2015, Defendant Matthew Scott Dubois, D.D.S., (“Dr. Dubois”) 

filed a motion to dismiss the claims Plaintiff Charles Edkins (“Edkins”) had 

brought against him. (See ECF #13.) On September 4, 2015, Dr. Dubois and 

Edkins filed a joint motion to dismiss Dr. Dubois as a Defendant in this action (the 

“Joint Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #21.) On September 30, 2015, Magistrate 

Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending that the Court grant the Joint Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF #26.) 

The R&R stated that the parties to this action could object to and seek review of 

the recommendation within fourteen days. (See id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 221-222.) 

2:15-cv-10615-MFL-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 226
No party has objected to the R&R. Failure to file objections to the R&R 

waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human 

Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231,

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the 

Magistrate Judge’s R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review 

the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has 

nevertheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of 

the Magistrate Judge. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 

September 30, 2015, Report and Recommendation (ECF #26) is ADOPTED as the 

Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons stated in 

the R&R, the Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF #21) is GRANTED, and all claims 

brought against Dr. Dubois are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1

 IT IS 

FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Dubois’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF #13) is 

DENIED AS MOOT.

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 12, 2015 

 

1

 All claims Plaintiff has brought against Defendants United States of America and 

Scott Kevin Dubois, D.D.S., remain pending. 

2:15-cv-10615-MFL-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 227
 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on November 12, 2015, by electronic means 

and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-10615-MFL-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 228
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.055-8 Marking. Each life preserver must have the following information clearly marked in waterproof lettering: ( a ) In letters three-fourths of an inch or more in height; ( 1 ) Adult (for persons weighing over 90 pounds); or
( 2 ) Child (for persons weighing less than 90 pounds).
( b ) In letters that can be read at a distance of 2 feet:
Inspected and tested in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. (Name of buoyant material) buoyant material provides a minimum buoyant force of (22 lb. or 11 lb.). Approved for use on all vessels by persons weighing (90 lb. or more, or less than 90 lb.). U.S. Coast Guard Approval No. 160.055/(assigned manufacturer's No.)/(Revision No.); (Model No.). (Name and address of manufacturer or distributor). (Lot No.)
[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8121, Mar. 28, 1973, as amended by CGD 75-008, 43 FR 9771, Mar. 9, 1978; 43 FR 10913, Mar. 11, 1978; USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56499, Sept. 22, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2443 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2443

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve access to 
             ambulance services under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2009

  Mr. Neal of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve access to 
             ambulance services under the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Ambulance Access 
Preservation Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT RETENTION TO ACCESS TO GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES IN 
              RURAL AND URBAN AREAS UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    Section 1834(l)(13) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(l)(13)) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``Temporary''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
                ``and before January 1, 2010'';
                    (B) in clause (i), by inserting ``, or 6 percent if 
                such service is furnished on or after January 1, 2010'' 
                after ``2010''; and
                    (C) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, or 6 percent 
                if such service is furnished on or after January 1, 
                2010'' after ``2010''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the following 
        new sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to 
        payments for services furnished on or after January 1, 2010.''

SEC. 3. PERMANENT RETENTION TO ACCESS TO AMBULANCE SERVICES IN SUPER 
              RURAL AREAS UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    Section 1834(l)(12)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(l)(12)(A)) is amended by striking ``and before January 1, 
2010,''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Criminal No. 15-cr-20382

v.

HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI,

MJ MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.

 /

PARTIES’ JOINT STATEMENT OF 

RESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATIVE 

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (Doc. #25)

The United States of America, Plaintiff, and Paul Nicoletti, 

Defendant, through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this 

statement of resolved and unresolved issues relating to Defendant’s 

Motion for Discovery (Doc. #25):

(1) The parties agree that whether the test for materiality for 

purposes of bank fraud conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §1349) and bank fraud 

(18 U.S.C. §1344) is an objective one or a subjective one remains 

unresolved, but agree that if materiality is to be determined by an 

objective standard, that is, their effect on a reasonably prudent lender, 

then the discovery defendant seeks in this motion is not “material to 

2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM Doc # 36 Filed 10/14/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 457
2

his defense” or otherwise discoverable under Rule 16 or Brady and its 

progeny;

(2) The parties agree that whether the materials the defendant 

seeks in this discovery motion are in the possession of the government 

remains unresolved.

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA L. McQUADE

United States Attorney

s/CRAIG A. WEIER (P33261)

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Phone: (313) 226-9678

E-Mail: craig.weier@usdoj.gov 

s/JOHN MINOCK

Attorney for D-1 Paul Nicoletti

339 E. Liberty Street, Suite 200

Ann Arbor, MI 48014

Phone: (734) 668-2200

E-Mail: jminock@cramerminock.com

Dated: October 14, 2016

2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM Doc # 36 Filed 10/14/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 458
3

2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM Doc # 36 Filed 10/14/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 459
NO. 07-05-0090-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MAY 2, 2005

	______________________________

	HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. and DR. HUAN VU,

										Appellants

	v.

	ESPERANZA SERENIL,

										Appellee

				_________________________________

	FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2003-522,262; HON. J. BLAIR CHERRY, JR., PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	On Motion to Dismiss

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Horizon Medical Products, Inc., appellant, by and through its attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because the trial court action disposed of all issues forming the basis of this appeal and the appeal is moot.  In the certificate of conference attached to the motion to dismiss, counsel for appellant advised this Court that counsel for appellee is opposed to the relief sought in this motion.  On April 8, 2005, this Court requested that counsel for appellee file a response to the motion to dismiss the appeal on or before April 18, 2005.  To date, no response has been filed with the Court.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellants’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.  

							Brian Quinn

							   Justice
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

EN/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK T. MURRAY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

KRAIG NEWMAN; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-35702

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05215-RBL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Mark T. Murray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of defendant Kraig Newman in Murray’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

FILED

MAR 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EN/Research 2 08-35702

de novo summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Case v. Kitsap

County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Newman had qualified immunity

from Murray’s claim of malicious prosecution because the record indicates that

there was probable cause to issue a search warrant and arrest Murray. See Mills v.

Graves, 930 F.2d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that “[qualified] immunity will

be lost only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause

as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable”).

AFFIRMED.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending June 16, 2007

|Filer                                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|CONNECTICUT BANK & TRUST COMPANY, THE | * Branch       | Application by The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Connecticut, to open a de novo branch in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act and section 208.6 of Regulation H. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable 
|Newspaper:                            | Not available 
|Federal Register:                     | Not applicable
|MACHIAS BANCORP, MHC                  | 4c8            | Section 4(c)(8) notification by Machias Bancorp MHC and Machias Bancorp, Inc., both of Machias, Maine to acquire a 25% additional interest in M&M Consulting Limited Liability Company, Bangor, Maine.                 | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                            | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                     | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us