alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 502.261 Petitions for reconsideration and stay. ( a ) Within thirty (30) days after issuance of a final decision or order by the Commission, any party may file a petition for reconsideration. Such petition shall be limited to 25 pages in length and shall be served in conformity with the requirements of subpart H of this part. A petition will be subject to summary rejection unless it: ( 1 ) Specifies that there has been a change in material fact or in applicable law, which change has occurred after issuance of the decision or order;
( 2 ) Identifies a substantive error in material fact contained in the decision or order; or
( 3 ) Addresses a finding, conclusion or other matter upon which the party has not previously had the opportunity to comment or which was not addressed in the briefs or arguments of any party. Petitions which merely elaborate upon or repeat arguments made prior to the decision or order will not be received. A petition shall be verified if verification of the original pleading is required and shall not operate as a stay of any rule or order of the Commission.
( b ) A petition for stay of a Commission order which directs the discontinuance of statutory violations will not be received.
( c ) The provisions of this section are not applicable to decisions issued pursuant to subpart S of this part. [Rule 261.]
[49 FR 44369, Nov. 6, 1984, as amended at 58 FR 27211, May 7, 1993]
# C_2013225EN.01008502.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/85

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-44/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)

2013/C 225/196

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cirpressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for an order that the Commission pay a sum by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the request made by the Commission’s Medical Officer to the applicant’s doctor for certain information regarding the medical treatment received by the applicant

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own cost and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commisison. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own cost and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commisison.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 34.

1

---
§ 387.5 Surplus property assignment recommendation. Before any assignment recommendation is submitted to the Disposal Agency by the Secretary the following conditions shall be met: ( a ) The Secretary has received and approved an application for the property.
( b ) The Applicant is able, willing, and authorized to assume immediate possession of the property and pay administrative expenses incidental to the conveyance (application preparation, documentation, legal and land transfer costs).
( c ) The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, has determined that the property to be conveyed is located in an area of serious economic disruption.
( d ) The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, approves the PFRP as part of a necessary economic development program.
( e ) The Secretary determines that the application complies with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as prepared by the Disposal Agency.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC. (the “Company”)for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers certifies, to the bestknowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Stephen L. Day   /s/ Michael W. Bruns     Stephen L. Day   Michael W. BrunsPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director   Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)   (Principal Financial Officer)     Date: May 15, 2007   Date: May 15, 2007
#### § 502.215 Requests for enlargement of time for filing briefs.

Requests for enlargement of time to file briefs must conform to the requirements of § 502.102. [Rule 215.]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3179

_____________________________

DOMONIC DAISEE ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA FINANCIAL SERVICES,

RISK MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

February 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

BILBREY, TANENBAUM, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Domonic Daisee Robinson, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-1027; Dir ID 2013-NM-121-AD
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT,

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN SERVICES OF AN INVESTIGATOR 

(ECF #185) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On June 26, 2017, Defendant Curtis Scott filed an ex parte application for 

authorization to obtain the services of an investigator. (See ECF #185.) For the 

reasons stated on the record at the August 8, 2017, status conference in this action, 

Scott’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: August 9, 2017 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 August 9, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1443 CA 12-00086 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

VILLAGE OF ILION, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, AND VILLAGE OF HERKIMER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF HERKIMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF HERKIMER COUNTY SELF-INSURANCE PLAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

LONGSTREET & BERRY, LLP, SYRACUSE (MARTHA L. BERRY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP, BINGHAMTON (ALBERT J. MILLUS, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered June 17, 2011. The order granted in part the motion of defendant County of Herkimer, individually and as administrator of Herkimer County Self-Insurance Plan, for a declaratory judgment and an order of preclusion.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Village of Ilion v County of Herkimer ([appeal No. 3] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 1, 2013]).

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-20351

Waseem Alam, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING REPLY

On May 27, 2020, Defendant Waseem Alam filed a second motion for compassionate 

release. (ECF No. 339). The Government filed a response. (ECF No. 342). In addition to opposing 

Alam’s motion on the merits, the Government argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

Alam’s motion because the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not yet 

returned its mandate in Alam’s appeal of the Court’s denial of his first motion for compassionate 

release. 

The Court has reviewed Alam’s motion and the Government’s response, and concludes 

that a reply would aid the decisional process. The Court ORDERS Alam to file a reply on or 

before June 10, 2020. The Court is specifically interested in Alam’s response to the Government’s 

jurisdictional arguments, but Alam is not limited in any way from advancing any other appropriate 

arguments in his reply. Alam’s reply brief shall be no longer than 10 pages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: June 4, 2020

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 344 filed 06/04/20 PageID.2686 Page 1 of 1
§ 189.35-7 Examinations. ( a ) Examination of weight handling gear will normally consist of a visual examination with access covers removed. Suitability of the equipment for the service intended will be emphasized. Disassembly of the equipment will be required only when there is evidence of a deficiency or an unsafe condition. Non-destructive tests, such as radiography, ultrasonic, electronic, or other methods may be used if appropriate, however will not be required.
§ 188.05-7 Ocean or unlimited coastwise vessels on inland and Great Lakes routes. ( a ) Vessels inspected and certificated for ocean or unlimited coastwise routes shall be considered suitable for navigation insofar as the provisions of this subchapter are concerned on any inland routes, including the Great Lakes.
Exhibit 23.1





                         Consent of Independent Auditors






The Board of Directors
Spurlock Industries, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-09659
on Form S-8 of Spurlock Industries,  Inc. of our report dated March 13, 1998 and
April 10, 1998 with respect to Note 2, relating to the  consolidated  statements
of financial condition of Spurlock Industries,  Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash  flows  for the year  then  ended,  which  report  is  incorporated  by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997
of Spurlock Industries, Inc.




/s/ Cherry, Bekaert & Holland L.L.P.

Richmond, Virginia
April 15, 1998
#### § 28.305 Lifesaving and signaling equipment.

Each vessel to which this subpart applies must meet the requirements for life preservers, immersion suits, ring life buoys, distress signals, and survival craft in §§ 28.110, 28.115, 28.145 and table 28.120 (a), (b), or (c), as appropriate for the vessel type, on the date that its construction or major conversion is completed.
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0318n.06 No. 09-3791 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. RONAL D WRI GHT,
Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COU RT FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

Be fore : MARTI

N and SUTTON , Circuit J udg es; GRAHAM, District Judge. *
S UT T ON, Circuit J udg e. Ronald Wright challeng es his classification as an arme d car eer criminal under

18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Relying on bindingprec edent, we aff irm. Wright pleade d guilty to being a felon in possession of a firea rm. In calc ulating his sentenc e, the district court deter

mined (1) that he was subject to the Armed Caree r Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) , requiring a statutory minimum of 180 months, and (2) that his guidelines rang e was 180–210 months. The court imposed a 180- month sentence
.

The Honora

ble J ames L
. Gra

ham, Senior United State s Di s t ri ct J udg e for the Southern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 09-3791

United States v. W

right On appeal, W rig ht argues that neither of hi s two fourth-de gree burg lary convictions under Ohio law, see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2911.12(A)( 4), amounted to a “violent felony” under ACCA. Wright did not raise the objection below, a nd acc ording ly

plain err or applies. No pl ain error occurr ed beca u s e t h er e was no err or. In United St ates v. Skipper , 552 F.3d 489, 492–93 (6th Cir. 2009), we held that a conviction under the same Ohio law amounts to a “crime of vi olence ” under the caree r offender desig nation in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See also United States v

. McBe e , 364 F. App’x 991 (6th Cir. 2010) (same ). Be cause , as re levant her e, “ we trea t a ‘cr ime of violence’ under § 4B1.1( a) of the guidelines the same as a ‘violent felony ’ under [ACC A],” United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420, 421 ( 6th Cir. 2009), Skipper g overns this ca se.
In asking us to overr

ule (or sidestep) Skipper , Wright asks us to do what we cannot. Only the en banc proce ss, a materia l intervening Supreme Court decision or a rele vant chang e to the guidelines or ACCA would permit us to overr ide Skipper
. See Syke s v. Anderson , 625 F.3d 294, 319 (6th Cir. 2010); see also 6th Cir. R. 206(c). Nor does Chambers v. United States , 555 U.S. 122 (2009), decide d the same day as Skipper , count as intervening Supreme Court prec edent. Chambers asked whether a statutory offe nse could contain multipl e cate g ories of offe nses, and Wright does not argue that Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12(A)( 4) prese nts a cate g orization problem. His complaint about Skipper g oes to its application of Begay v. United States , 553 U.S. 137 (2008), which the Supreme Court decided nine months before Sk ipper
.

- 2 -No. 09-3791

United States v. W

right Be cause the district court proper ly sentenc ed Wright to the statutory minimum sentenc e, his
rea sonablene ss challeng e is also meritless. See United States v. Higgins , 557 F.3d 381, 398 (6th Cir. 2009).
For

these re asons, we a ffirm.

- 3 -
§ 502.226 Decision based on official notice; public documents. ( a ) Official notice may be taken of such matters as might be judicially noticed by the courts, or of technical or scientific facts within the general knowledge of the Commission as an expert body, provided, that where a decision or part thereof rests on the official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, the fact of official notice shall be so stated in the decision, and any party, upon timely request, shall be afforded an opportunity to show the contrary.
( b ) Whenever there is offered in evidence (in whole or in part) a public document, such as an official report, decision, opinion, or published scientific or economic statistical data issued by any of the executive departments (or their subdivisions), legislative agencies or committees, or administrative agencies of the Federal Government (including Government-owned corporations), or a similar document issued by a state or its agencies, and such document (or part thereof) has been shown by the offeror to be reasonably available to the public, such document need not be produced or marked for identification, but may be offered in evidence as a public document by specifying the document or relevant part thereof. [Rule 226.]
#### John Van Roy, *Respondent, v.*Clara Morris Harriot, *Appellant.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         469,595                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,948                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     58,319                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               543,410                       0
<PP&E>                                       6,052,733                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,781,320                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,844,826                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          358,773                       0
<BONDS>                                      3,135,386                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     350,667                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,844,826                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               676,035                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  274,337                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               281,223                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,579                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,900                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,900                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,900                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.13                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    16.13                       0
        

</TABLE>
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). 

NO. 07-03-0058-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

______________________________

TRACY SCOGIN FRENCH,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 411TH DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY;

NO. 16457; HON. ROBERT HILL TRAPP, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ORDER ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

Tracy Scogin French, appellant, has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule

42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Without passing on the merits of the

case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and
2

dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s personal request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Brian Quinn 

 Justice 

Do not publish.
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT
                                    ITEM II


             Statement Reference Computation of Per Share Earnings



     Primary earnings (loss) per share amounts were computed on the basis of
the weighted average number of shares of common stock during the year. The
weighted average number of shares used for this computation was 868,248 for
1997 and 879,465 for 1996, 1995, 1994 and 1993.

     Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share amounts were computed on the
basis of the weighted average number of shares of common stock and common
stock equivalents outstanding during the year. Common stock equivalents
include employee stock options. The weighted average number of shares used
for this computation was 1,034,574, 1,022,402, 1,044,684, 1,012,773 and
1,034,972, in 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, and 1993, respectively.
#### § 308.504 Definition of territories and possessions.

Whenever reference is made to the territories and possessions of the United States in this subpart or in any supplement thereto or any policy of insurance issued pursuant to the provisions thereof, said territories and possessions shall be deemed to include only the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, and Wake Island.
§ 45.105 Information supplied to the master. Unless otherwise authorized by the Commandant, the vessel must have onboard, in a form approved by the Commandant, sufficient information. ( a ) To enable the master to load and ballast the vessel in a manner that avoids unacceptable stresses in the vessel's structure; and
( b ) To guide the master as to the stability of the ship under varying conditions of service.
#### § 4.06-70 Penalties.

Violation of this part is subject to the civil penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 2115.

[USCG-2001-8773, 70 FR 75961, Dec. 22, 2005]
James Sanchez

ASD

**Date Name(s)**  **Affliation(s)**

Oct-10 Stephen J Hunter Eaton 1/7/2011 Morgan Andreae, John O'Brien, Chris Demko Cummins and Allison 1/19/2011John O'Brien Cummins 1/20/2011 Curt Vapor, Chad Wenn, Christopher Demko, Robert Yeater Allison Transmission 2/7/2011 John O'Brien Cummins 2/16/2011John O'Brien Cummins 3/2/2011 Curt Vapor, Chad Wenn, Christopher Demko, Robert Yeater Allison Transmission 3/4/2011 Chad Wenn Allison 3/7/2011 Chad Wenn Allison 3/9/2011 Curt Vapor, Chad Wenn, Christopher Demko, Robert Yeater Allison Transmission 3/16/2011John O'Brien Cummins 3/17/2011John O'Brien Cummins 3/29/2011John O'Brien Cummins 3/29/2011Jeffrey Bosscher, Matthew Johnson Eaton 5/26/2011 Craig Jacobs Eaton 5/31/2011 Zhen Sun Cummins 6/16/2011Jeffrey Bosscher Eaton**Topic**

Setup Eaton Hybrid at EPA Discuss setting up the Cummins engine with an Allison transmission Powerpack testing Cycles and powerpack testing Powerpack testing Powerpack testing Cycles and powerpack testing Powerpack testing Powerpack testing Cycles and powerpack testing Powerpack testing Powerpack testing Powerpack testing Powerpack testing results Observe powerpack testing Pretransmission powerpack brake limit Observe powerpack testing