alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.06-20 Specimen collection requirements. ( a ) *Alcohol testing.* ( 1 ) When conducting alcohol testing required in § 4.06-3(a), an individual determined under this part to be directly involved in the SMI must provide a specimen of their breath, blood, or saliva to the marine employer as required in this subpart.
( 2 ) Collection of an individual's blood to comply with § 4.06-3(a) must be taken only by qualified medical personnel.
( 3 ) Collection of an individual's saliva or breath to comply with § 4.06-3(a) must be taken only by personnel trained to operate the alcohol-testing device in use and must be conducted according to this subpart.
( b ) *Drug testing.* ( 1 ) When conducting drug testing required in § 4.06-3(b), an individual determined under this part to be directly involved in the SMI must provide a specimen of their urine according to 46 CFR part 16 and 49 CFR part 40.
( 2 ) Specimen collection and shipping kits used to conduct drug testing must be used according to 49 CFR part 40.
[USCG-2001-8773, 70 FR 75961, Dec. 22, 2005]
§ 182.540 Ballast systems. ( a ) Ballast piping must not be installed in any compartment integral with the hull of a wooden vessel. Where the carriage of liquid ballast in such a vessel is necessary, suitable ballast tanks, structurally independent of the hull, must be provided.
( b ) Solid and water ballast must comply with the requirements of part 178 of this subchapter.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of DOVER SADDLERY, INC. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers certifies,
to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                |  |  |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|/s/ Stephen L. Day                              |  |  |  | /s/ David R. Pearce          
|                                                |  | 
|Stephen L. Day                                  |  |  |  | David R. Pearce              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)                   |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
|                                                |  | 
|Date: June 5, 2013                              |  |  |  | Date: June 5, 2013
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**481 TP 14-01811**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF RICARDO RICHARDS, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

THOMAS STICHT, SUPERINTENDENT, GOWANDA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS.

RICARDO RICHARDS, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [M. William Boller, A.J.], entered June 17, 2014) to review a determination of respondents. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
National Transportation Safety Board

\

)

J

.-

Office of the Chairman

Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114

1601 Lind Avenue, SW

Renton, Washington 98055-4056

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-12-AD

Dear Sir or Madam:

Washington. D.C. 20594

JUN 2 0 2006

The National Transportation Safety Board has reviewed your supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled "Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400,

-500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900, and 747-400 Series Airplanes; and Model 757, 767, and

777 Airplanes," which was published in 71 Federal Register 30331-30335 on May 26, 2006.

The notice revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing

Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900, and 747-400 series airplanes; and

Model 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required modifying the

static inverter by relocating resistor R170 of the static inverter bridge assembly. The new

proposed action revises the original NPRM by adding a requirement to replace resistor R170

with a new resistor and to relocate the new resistor. The proposed AD is intended to prevent a

standby static inverter from overheating, which could result in smoke in the flight deck and cabin

and loss of the electrical standby power system.

The original NPRM was prompted by reports that static inverters had overheated on

several Boeing airplanes. Since the issuance of thc original NPRM, the National Transportation

Safety Board has investigated an event involving a foreign-operated Boeing 737-700

next-generation aircraft in which heavy smoke came out of the electronics compartment. The

investigation revealed that simply relocating the carbon composition-style resistor (R 170), which

was installed in production until late 1999, did not prevent the overheat condition. Further

evaluation of the carbon resistor has shown a failure mode that can still cause the resistor to

ignite capacitors whether it is in its original location or relocated.

A review of incidents from 1998 through 2004 involving fire and smoke on commercial

transport-category airplanes containing the subject static inverters revealed 25 cases in which

static inverters overheated, causing electrical burning odor and/or smoke in the passenger cabin

and resulting in flights being diverted. Passengers had to be evacuated from the aircraft in two of

these events; one of these evacuations caused injuries to two passengers.

7805
2

The Safety Board is concerned that because of the static inverter's location (typically in

the electronics compartment below the cabin floor), flight crews may be unable to determine the

source of any electrical burning odor and/or smoke in the event a static inverter overheats and

would be unable to quickly gain access to extinguish it. Therefore, the Board fully supports the

action proposed in the supplemental NPRM and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this

proposed rule.

Sincerely,

Acting Chairman
#### The City of Pueblo, Appellant, v. Pinckney, Appellee.

Appellate Practice.

Where there is evidence to support the verdict, judgment thereon will not be disturbed.

*Appeal from the District Court of Pueblo County.*

Mr. M. G. Saunders, for appellant

Messrs. McFeeley & McAlliney, for appellee.

Reed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by appellee against the city of Pueblo to recover damage for a personal injury received by a fall upon the street, through the alleged negligence of the city in failing to keep a sidewalk in repair. It appears that the sidewalk, where the accident occurred, was constructed of boards laid upon stringers or sills, the boards being eight feet long, the width of the sidewalk, and at right angles to the course of the street. It is shown by the evidence that one board was considerably decayed and weakened, not properly supported from below, that appellee stepped upon it and it settled or sprung down ; her foot caught against the next board, or in the opening between the two, caused by the sinking of the board, and she fell, receiving serious and permanent injury.

*385Issues were properly made by the pleadings, a trial had to a jury, resulting iu a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,645.50, and a judgment on the verdict, from which this appeal was prosecuted. As in all cases of that kind, there was some conflict of testimony. No objections appear to have been made to any testimony offered nor exceptions saved to the ruling of the court. Upon the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a motion was made by the defendant for a nonsuit, which was very properly overruled. Error is assigned upon the instructions of the court, but appears to have been abandoned; it is not urged in argument, nor are the instructions set out in the abstract. Appellant’s contention is based entirely upon the supposed improper finding of the jury in favor of the plaintiff, as being against the evidence.

The correctness of the instructions being conceded, no questions of law presented, and there being evidence to support the verdict, there is nothing for this court to review. It is clearly the province of the jury to find the facts in a case, and unless there is an evident disregard of duty, and a finding is made so at variance with the law and the facts established as to show it the result of improper influence or motives, such finding will not be reviewed. Appellate courts cannot disregard the findings of a jury and substitute themselves in the place of it; within its limits and line of duty its rights and powers are as well defined as those of the presiding judge or the judges of this court. This principle has been so often asserted by both courts of last resort that a recitation of the cases is unnecessary. *Where there is evidence to support the verdict it will not he*disturbed, even though in cases of conflict a preponderance of the evidence appears to be against it; hence the futility of prosecuting appeals where the only error relied upon is the finding of questions of fact by a jury, where the evidence is conflicting.

The judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### § 45.129 Hull fittings: General.

Hull fittings must be securely mounted in the hull so as to avoid increases in hull stresses and must be protected from local damage caused by movement of equipment or cargo.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Fibersat Networking Services ) ASBCA No. 62991

)

Under Contract No. W91B4N

- 18

- P

- 5013 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Obaidullah Karimy

Chief Financial Officer

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Michael R. Tregle, Jr., JA

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: November 21 , 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62991

, Appeal of Fibersat

Networking Services , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: November 21, 2022 B RIAN S. SMITH

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
§ 184.420 Charts and nautical publications. ( a ) As appropriate for the intended voyage, a vessel must carry adequate and up-to-date: ( 1 ) Charts of large enough scale to make safe navigation possible;
( 2 ) U.S. Coast Pilot or similar publication;
( 3 ) Coast Guard Light List;
( 4 ) Tide tables; and
( 5 ) Current tables, or a river current publication issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or a river authority.
( b ) Extracts from the publications listed above for the areas to be transited may be provided instead of the complete publication.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1002, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51358, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2014112EN.01001201.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

(Case C-601/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Market economy treatment - Time-limit for adoption of the related decision exceeded - Effect))

2014/C 112/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 10 October 2012 in Case T-150/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council, by which the General Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) each to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) each to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

1

---
§ 42.11-1 General. ( a ) As described in this subchapter under §§ 42.07-35, 42.07-40, 42.09-15, and 42.09-20, the American Bureau of Shipping or other recognized classification societies approved as load line assigning and issuing authorities perform the duties connected with making load line assignments to vessels.
( b ) The Commandant is responsible for the administration of the load line acts, the 1966 Convention, other treaties regarding load lines, and the implementing regulations in this subchapter which include prescribed form and content of applicable load line certificates.
( c ) Except in special instances for Coast Guard vessels, the Commandant does not perform the duties of a load line assigning authority.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10057, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9013, June 5, 1969; CGD 80-120, 47 FR 5723, Feb. 8, 1982]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEDELL HAMMOND,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-12051

v. Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

CITY OF TROY, ET AL.,

R. Steven Whalen

 Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 51); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT 52-4

DISTRICT COURT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 34); AND (3)

DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT 52-4

DISTRICT COURT

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and

Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendant 52-4 District Court’s

Motion to Dismiss based upon Eleventh Amendment immunity. (ECF No. 51, Report

and Recommendation). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Report and

Recommendation.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and there being no timely

objections from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(b),

the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

51), GRANTS Defendant 52-4 District Court’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34), and

2:15-cv-12051-PDB-RSW Doc # 56 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 365
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the claims against Defendant 52-4 District Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 21, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on

March 21, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2:15-cv-12051-PDB-RSW Doc # 56 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 366
§ 197.300 Applicability. ( a ) Each diving installation used on each vessel or facility subject to this subpart must meet the requirements of this subpart.
( b ) In addition to the requirements of this subpart, equipment which is permanently installed on vessels and is part of the diving installation must meet Subchapters F and J of this chapter.
( c ) All repairs and modifications to pressure vessels used for commercial diving operations must be made in accordance with the requirements of section VIII, division 1 or division 2 of the ASME Code, ASME PVHO-1, part 54 of this chapter, or 49 CFR 173.34, as applicable.
( d ) All repairs and modifications to pressure piping used for commercial diving operations must be made in accordance with the requirements of the ANSI Code or part 56 of this chapter, as applicable.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 Ed Foster filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2015. (R. 

1.) In 2017, the Court granted Foster’s request for a stay to allow him to exhaust state court 

remedies with respect to certain claims. (R. 14.) The Court imposed certain conditions under which 

Foster needed to proceed, including that he file a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court 

within sixty days of the stay order. 

Foster filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court within sixty days, but the 

motion failed to comply with portions of Michigan Court Rule 6.502(C) and was returned. (R. 15.) 

The Circuit Court provided that Foster could re-submit a modified motion should he wish to do 

so. Foster asks this Court for permission to re-submit his motion. He does not need this Court’s 

permission to file a pleading in state court, so the Court construes the letter as a request to continue 

the stay while he re-submits his motion. The Court finds that the request is made in good faith and 

is not an attempt to unnecessarily delay these proceedings. The Court grants the request. Foster 

must re-submit a motion for relief from judgment in the state court within sixty days of entry of 

this order. As the prior order stated, Foster may move to amend his petition to add the newlyED FOSTER, 

 Petitioner, 

 

v. 

 

THOMAS WINN, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 15-12265 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk 

OPINION AND ORDER 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO CONTINUE STAY 
2 

exhausted claims within sixty days after the conclusion of state-court post-conviction proceedings. 

(R. 14.) 

 SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: February 28, 2018 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 28, 2018. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (1172).                    

*Date and Time:*                         February 23, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, Rm. 1235, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ms. Mayra Montrose, Program Manager, Room 1282, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-8040.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations in the selection of the Alan T. Waterman Award recipient.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The nominations being reviewed include information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: January 17, 2007.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-223 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M