alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 173.063 Intact stability requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in this section, each sailing school vessel must meet the intact stability requirements in §§ 170.170, 171.050, and 171.055 of this chapter.
( b ) In applying the requirements in §§ 170.170 and 171.050 of this subchapter, the value of “T” is equal to the angle of heel at which the deck edge is immersed or 1 ⁄ 3 of the downflooding angle, whichever is less.
( c ) In applying the requirements of § 171.055(d) (1) and (2) of this subchapter— ( 1 ) The value “X” is equal to 0.6 long tons/square foot (9.8 metric tons/square meter).
( 2 ) For a vessel in service on protected or partially protected waters, values “Y” and “Z” are determined from graphs 173.063 (a) and (b) and multiplied by the multiplier in graph 173.063(e).
( 3 ) For a vessel in service on exposed waters, “Y” and “Z” are determined from graphs 173.063 (c) and (d) and multiplied by the multiplier from graph 173.063(e).
( 4 ) To convert required numerals to units of “metric tons/square meter,” multiply by 10.94.
( d ) Each vessel of the open boat type that is required to comply with the requirements in §§ 178.300 and 178.310 of this chapter, may instead comply with the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
( e ) In lieu of complying with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, an open boat may be provided with sufficient air tankage or other internal buoyancy to maintain the vessel afloat when the vessel is completely flooded or capsized. If foam is used to comply with this paragraph, it must be installed in accordance with the requirements in § 170.245 of this subchapter.
( f ) A sailing school catamaran must meet the intact stability requirements in § 171.057.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 925, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 946, Jan. 10, 1996]
## 2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-30-2007 

# U SA v . S a n t i ago
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4728

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . S a n t i a g o " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1178. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1178

## DLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-4728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. MARCOS SANTIAGO, Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00157) District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 19, 2007 Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Filed: April 30, 2007)

OPINION

PER CURIAM Marcos Santiago appeals the District Court’s order denying his “Motion to order government to disclose to defendant all Jencks material within their possession.” In April 2004, Santiago was convicted of robbery and firearm charges and sentenced to 402

## 2 

## months in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Santiago filed a “Motion to order government to disclose to defendant all Jencks material within their possession.” The District Court denied both the motion and Santiago’s motion for reconsideration. Santiago filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Santiago argues that he needs copies of all statements made by a witness against him at his criminal trial in order to bring a § 2255 motion. According to the electronic docket for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Santiago filed a § 2255 motion on January 19, 2007. A discovery motion filed in those proceedings is the appropriate vehicle for obtaining such documents if they exist. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
#### Mahlon C. Martin, *Respondent, v.*Albert G. Thorp, *Appellant, Impleaded, et*c.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending May 27, 2006

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST BANK        | * Branch       | First Bank, Burkburnett, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 2801 Midwestern Parkway, Wichita Falls, Texas 76308. | Newspaper:06/07/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 06/07/2006    
|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
# C_2017086EN.01002301.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 –Andersen v Commission

(Case T-92/11 RENV) (1)

1

((State aid - Rail transport - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) - Public service contracts for the supply of rail passenger transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to certain conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law - Service of general economic interest - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 086/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and M.-I. Rantou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, lawyer) and Danske Statsbaner (DSB), (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Dansk Tog (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Rivas Andrés and F. Nissen Morten, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (State aid C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (State aid C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) in so far as it concerns the payment of 21 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (State aid C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) in so far as it concerns the payment of 21 December 2009;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Mr Jørgen Andersen, the European Commission, Dansk Tog, the Kingdom of Denmark and Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Jørgen Andersen, the European Commission, Dansk Tog, the Kingdom of Denmark and Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

1

---
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

JACK V. GIACALONE, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________) 

Case No. 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW 

INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER 

 This matter came on for hearing on March 9, 2020, upon the Motion by United States for 

Installment Payment Order and Ancillary Relief [doc. 32]. For the reasons stated orally and 

recorded in open Court, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 

 1. That the Motion by United States for Installment Payment Order and Ancillary 

Relief is GRANTED as set forth in this order; 

 2. That Jack V. Giacalone shall pay the United States $1,100 on the first day of 

every month, beginning April 1, 2020, for application to the judgment debt in this case, less any 

amount that Jack Giacalone actually pays to the Internal Revenue Service for current taxes; 

3. That either party may petition for modification of the $1,100 amount upon 

development of a fuller record; and 

 

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 42, PageID.397 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

4. That if Jack Giacalone fails to comply with any discovery orders of this Court, 

then upon application of the United States, and in addition to any other coercive sanctions the 

Court may impose, the monthly installment payment amount shall increase to $3,500. 

March 12, 2020 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 42, PageID.398 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Rosa Arzate,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Matthew Manuel Andujo, Juan Miguel 

Torres and C.R.A.W. Oyster Bar & 

Lounge, LLC a/k/a Craw Oyster Bar & 

Lounge, LLC d/b/a Craw Oyster Bar & 

Lounge,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00143-CV

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2017DCV4374)

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until December 20, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jeffrey B. Pownell, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 20, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### ALBERT J. LUEBBERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES J. SCHAAL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Decided March 21, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchabd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellant, *Frederic W. Schlosstein.*

For the respondent,

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant for the sum of $500 for breach of a contract between them, of which the following is a copy:

“Newark, April 12th, 1926.

Deceived from Albert Luebbers deposit of $50 [fifty dollars] on property situated on Mount Pleasant avenue, West Orange, New Jersey, purchase price $2,000 [two thousand dollars], estate of Mr. and Mrs. C. A. Schaal.

Deposit to be returned in case fire insurance company decides to rebuild house on said property.

Balance due upon delivery of deed of said property.

Deceived deposit of $50.

Chas. J. Schaal,

*Administrator of Estate.”*

The trial judge gave a judgment for $50 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

From this judgment defendant has appealed to this court.

A state of the case was agreed upon between the attorneys of the respective parties and is printed in the record before *311us. There is no indication anywhere in the state of the case of any particular error relied on by appellant for a reversal of the judgment. There is no specification of causes for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
#### ANNA MORTON, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM, PLAINTIFF, v. HARDMAN-WILKIE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ANNA MORTON, ADMINISTRATRIX, PLAINTIFF, v. HARDMAN-WILKIE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided October 21, 1929.

Before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.

Por the rule, *Ralph E. Cooper.*

Contra, *Raymond E. Taylor*and *William E. Ilolmwood.*

Pee Cubtam.

The Hardman-Wilkie Construction Company was the owner of a one-ton Eord truck which on September 28th, 1927, was operated by and in the control of Hugh M. Wilkie, as its agent and servant. On that day he carted a load of stone sills to the Kearny fire house, at Kearny avenue, in Kearny.

The material was delivered to the rear of the fire house on Maple street. The truck was run upon the rear of the lot and turned around so that it faced Maple street. Being upon *918a grade sloping toward Maple street, it is said, the rear wheels were blocked, the emergency brakes applied and the motor stopped. This is disputed, however. Three men in the employ of the mason contractor who was doing the work on the fire house unloaded the sills. Some fifteen or twenty minutes after this work was completed the truck was seen to be in motion, proceeding toward Maple street. The driver, the defendant Hugh M. Wilkie, was not upon it but was running after it. ‘ The truck proceeded to and over Maple street and into and along Alexander street where it ran over Peter Morton, plaintiff’s decedent, injuring him so that he died from such injuries.

A trial of the cause resulted in verdicts in favor of the plaintiff and against the Hardman-Wilkie Construction Company, the owner of the truck, and against the plaintiff and in favor of Hugh M. Wilkie, the driver and servant of the owner of the truck.

Three reasons are advanced why the verdict in favor of Hugh M. Wilkie should be set aside.

One only requires our consideration and that is that the. verdicts are clearly inconsistent, and this is so. The verdicts against the owner ■ are not sustainable except upon the theory of *respondeat superior.*It is claimed that the proofs show that the brakes on the truck were not in proper condition and that this was the cause of the happening. A careful examination of the proofs does not disclose any such situation.

The rule to show cause is therefore made absolute.
§ 4.05-12 Alcohol or drug use by individuals directly involved in casualties. ( a ) For each marine casualty required to be reported by § 4.05-10, the marine employer shall determine whether there is any evidence of alcohol or drug use by individuals directly involved in the casualty.
( b ) In the written report (Forms CG-2692 and CG-2692B) submitted for the casualty, the marine employer must include information that— ( 1 ) Identifies those individuals for whom evidence of drug or alcohol use, or evidence of intoxication, has been obtained; and,
( 2 ) Specifies the method used to obtain such evidence, such as personal observation of the individual, or by chemical testing of the individual.
( c ) An entry shall be made in the official log book, if carried, pertaining to those individuals for whom evidence of intoxication is obtained. The individual must be informed of this entry and the entry must be witnessed by a second person.
( d ) If an individual directly involved in a casualty refuses to submit to, or cooperate in, the administration of a timely chemical test, when directed by a law enforcement officer or by the marine employer, this fact must be noted in the official log book, if carried, and in the written report (Forms CG-2692 and CG-2692B), and shall be admissible as evidence in any administrative proceeding.
[CGD 84-099, 52 FR 47534, Dec. 14, 1987, as amended by USCG-2016-0748, 83 FR 11902, Mar. 19, 2018]
§ 35.20-1 Notice to mariners; aids to navigation—T/OCLB. ( a ) Licensed officers are required to acquaint themselves with the latest information published by the Coast Guard and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency regarding aids to navigation, and neglect to do so is evidence of neglect of duty. It is desirable that vessels navigating oceans and coastwise and Great Lakes water shall have available in the pilothouse for convenient reference at all times a file of the applicable Notice to Mariners.
( b ) Local Notices to Mariners, published by each U.S. Coast Guard District, contain announcements and information on changes in aids to navigation and other marine information affecting the safety of navigation on oceans and coastwise and the Great Lakes. These notices may be obtained free of charge from the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center Web site found at *http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName = lnmMain.*
( c ) Weekly Notices to Mariners (worldwide coverage) are prepared jointly by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Ocean Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. They include changes in aids to navigation and other important navigation safety information in assembled form for U.S. waters. Foreign marine information is also included in these notices. These notices are available without charge from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Web site found at *http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal .*
( d ) As appropriate for the intended voyage, all vessels must carry adequate and up-to-date: ( 1 ) Charts;
( 2 ) Sailing directions;
( 3 ) Coast pilots;
( 4 ) Light lists;
( 5 ) Notices to mariners;
( 6 ) Tide tables;
( 7 ) Current tables; and
( 8 ) All other nautical publications necessary.[1]
[CGFR 66-33, 31 FR 15268, Dec. 6, 1966, as amended by CGFR 68-32, 33 FR 5714, Apr. 12, 1968; CGD 75-074, 42 FR 5963, Jan. 31, 1977; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34534, Sept. 7, 1988; USCG-2001-10224, 66 FR 48619, Sept. 21, 2001; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58280, Sept. 29, 2014] Footnotes -
35.20-1
[1] For United States vessels in or on the navigable waters of the United States, see 33 CFR 164.33.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00477-CV

In re FSTI, Inc.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Filed: August 26, 2016
§ 35.25-10 Requirements for fuel oil—T/ALL. ( a ) Oil to be used as fuel to be burned under boilers on tankships shall have a flashpoint of not less than 140°F. (Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Method, ASTM D 93) (incorporated by reference, see § 35.01-3).
( b ) It shall be the duty of the chief engineer to make an entry in the log of each supply of fuel oil received on board, stating the quantity received, the name of the vendor, the name of the oil producer, and the flashpoint (Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Method, ASTM D 93) (incorporated by reference, see § 35.01-3) for which it is certified by the producer.
( c ) It shall be the further duty of the chief engineer to draw and seal at the time the supply is received on board, a half-pint sample of each lot of fuel oil, such sample to be preserved until that particular supply of oil is exhausted.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16704, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18805, Dec. 18, 1968; CGD 73-254, 40 FR 40163, Sept. 2, 1975; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58459, Sept. 29, 2000]
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 11.0

                Statement re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings
<PAGE>

South Jersey Financial Corporation, Inc.
Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     For the Three Months             For the Nine Months
                                            Ended                            Ended
                                        September 30                     September 30
                               -------------------------------    ---------------------------
                                    1999            1998               1999          1998
                               --------------  ---------------    -------------- ------------
                                              (In thousands, except per share data)
<S>                            <C>             <C>                <C>            <C>
Net income                     $          680  $           531    $          229 $      1,698
                               ==============  ===============    ============== ============

Average shares outstanding (1)      3,423,846        Na                3,465,702      Na
                               ==============  ===============    ============== ============

Earnings per share (2)         $         0.20        Na           $         0.00      Na
                               ==============  ===============    ============== ============

</TABLE>



(1) Only the ESOP shares released in their respective periods were considered
outstanding for the purposes of the weighted average shares outstanding
calculation.

(2) Earnings per share, basic and diluted, are the same for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 1999 and represent data since becoming a public
company on February 12, 1999.