alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 401.230 Certificates of Registration. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76349 , Sept. 17, 2024.
( a ) A Certificate of Registration shall describe the part or parts of the Great Lakes within which the pilot is authorized to perform pilotage services and such description shall not be inconsistent with the terms of the pilotage authorization in his or her master's, mate's, or pilot's endorsement issued under the authority of Title 52 of the Revised Statutes.
( b ) A Certificate of Registration shall not authorize the holder to board any vessel, or to serve as a pilot of any vessel, without the permission of the owner or master. A Certificate of Registration shall be in the possession of a pilot at all times when he or she is in the service of a vessel, and shall be displayed upon demand of the owner or master, any United States Coast Guard officer or inspector, or a representative of the Director.
( c ) A Certificate of Registration evidencing registration of the holder is the property of the U.S. Coast Guard and it shall not be pledged, deposited, or surrendered to any person except as authorized by this part. A Certificate of Registration may not be photostated or copied. A Certificate which has expired without renewal, or renewal of which has been denied under the provisions of this section, shall be surrendered to the Director upon demand.
( d ) An application for a replacement of a lost, damaged, or defaced Certificate of Registration shall be made in writing to the Director together with two full-face photographs, 11 ⁄ 2 inches by 2 inches, signed on the face. A replacement fee of five dollars ($5) by check or money order, drawn to the order of the U.S. Coast Guard, shall accompany any such application. A Certificate issued as a replacement for a lost, damaged, or defaced Certificate shall be marked so as to indicate that it is a replacement. Upon receipt of a Certificate issued as a replacement, the damaged or defaced Certificate shall be surrendered to the Director.
( e ) A Certificate of Registration may be voluntarily surrendered to the Director by a Registered Pilot at any time such pilot no longer desires to perform pilotage services; however, in the event such Registered Pilot has been served with a notice of hearing pursuant to § 401.250, a voluntary surrender of the Certificate of Registration shall be at the option of the Director.
[29 FR 10465, July 28, 1964, as amended at 31 FR 9065, July 1, 1966; 32 FR 14221, Oct. 13, 1967; CGD 78-144a, 44 FR 19363, Apr. 2, 1979; 61 FR 5721, Feb. 14, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 32655, June 25, 1996, and further redesignated and amended by USCG-1998-3976, 63 FR 35139, 35140, June 29, 1998; USCG-2002-13058, 67 FR 61279, Sept. 30, 2002; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11267, Mar. 16, 2009]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KAMARIA DOUGLAS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14784 

 Hon. Terrence G. Berg 

v. 

CAWLEY & BERGMANN LLP, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs, this 

case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Terrence G. Berg 

 TERRENCE G. BERG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 1, 2015 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

upon the parties and/or counsel of record on May 1, 2015, by electronic 

means and/or ordinary mail. 

 

 s/A. Chubb 

 CASE MANAGER 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 4:14-cv-14784-TGB-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 05/01/15 PageID.15 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.                    

*Date:*                         February 8-9, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Conference Room 4C32, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John J. O'Shea, MD, PhD, Scientific Director, National Institute of Arthritis & Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases, Building 10, Room 9N228, MSC 1820, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2612,                         *osheaj@arb.niams.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 11, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-242 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### George Worthington, *Respondent, v.*The People of the State of New York, *Appellant*.

Award and judgment affirmed, with costs on authority of *Donalds*v. *People*(4th department).
#### PROGRESS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RELATOR, v. ALVIN J. WILLIAMS, INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OF THE BOROUGH OF ROSELLE; THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF ROSELLE, AND THE BOROUGH OF ROSELLE, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May 18, 1929

Decided November 7, 1929.

*974Before Justices Teeh chard, Lloyd and Case. ■

Eor the relator, *Leavitt, Ulbrich & Talley (Fayette N. Talley,*of counsel).

Eor the respondents, *R. Robinson Chance.*

Pee Otjeiam.

This is a rule to show cause why a writ of *mandamus*should not issue commanding the board of adjustment of the borough and the inspector of buildings of the borough to show cause why a permit should not issue to the relator for the erection of a three-story apartment building on land owned by the relator.

It appears that on July 21st, 1927, relator applied for a permit to erect the apartment house on land in residence “A” district where buildings of the type proposed are prohibited by the zoning ordinance. The permit was denied by the building inspector and an appeal was taken to the board of adjustment on August 4th, 1927, and a hearing was held, after which this motion was made and carried:

“That the permit be granted with the understanding that the modified set of plans be used, also building be erected ten feet from the east side, twenty feet from rear and twenty feet from Locust street side and that plans when revised be submitted to the board for their approval.”

It further appears that relator revised its plans and submitted them to the board on October 6th, 1927, but no action was taken thereon by the board of adjustment.

The matter rested thus until April 10th, 1928 (seven days after chapter 274 of laws of 1928 took effect), when relator appeared and “requested the board to grant the permit whi'ch *975was promised them conditionally by the previous board.” The board refused to take action on the request.

It is stipulated that a permit was never received by the relator and never issued by the board of adjustment or the building inspector. It is further stipulated that the relator never began the construction of its apartment house and that no work of any kind has been done or commenced by the relator.

We think that we should not grant the writ. The property in question was zoned against an apartment house by ordinance in effect before the passage of the constitutional amendment, and, by the statute passed after the constitutional amendment, the ordinance was continued in effect; and under our decision in *Koplin*v. *South Orange,*6 *N. J. Mis. R.*489, such ordinance will be presumed to be a valid exercise of the police power in the absence of a showing to the contrary of which there is none in the present case.

It is to be noted that there never has been any unconditional action by way of granting a permit by the board of adjustment. Their action was conditioned upon their approval of revised plans, and they were never approved.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26409-26410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2293]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict--SEP.
    Date: June 5, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814.

[[Page 26410]]

    Contact Person: Beata Buzas, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 3041, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-0800, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8be9e9fef1eaf8cbe6eae2e7a5e5e2e3a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7d5d5c2cdd6c4f7dad6dedb99d9dedf99d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2293 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40563

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

PAULIN SANCHEZ-ROCHA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(L-95-16-01)

April 8, 1996

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Pauline Sanchez-Rocha was charged with three counts of

inducing aliens to enter the United States illegally, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(D). Sanchez-Rocha moved to suppress

evidence obtained after the stop of his vehicle by border patrol

agents. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court

denied the motion, holding that the agents had sufficient

reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and alternatively that
2

the agents had an objectively reasonable good faith belief that

they were justified in making the stop. Sanchez-Rocha entered a

conditional plea of guilty to the first count of the indictment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), preserving

his right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the motion to

suppress. The district court sentenced Sanchez-Rocha to 175 days

of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $200

fine. Sanchez-Rocha timely appealed.

In his brief to this court, Sanchez-Rocha attacks the district

court’s conclusion that the agents had reasonable suspicion to stop

him. He does not, however, assert error as to the district court’s

alternative conclusion that the agents possessed a reasonably

objective good faith belief that the stop was justified. While

this court construes briefs liberally when determining the issues

presented for review, issues not raised at all are waived. United

States v. Bullock, 71 F.3d 171, 178 (5th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Musa, 45 F.3d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Bermea,

30 F.3d 1539, 1572 (5th Cir. 1994), certs. denied, __ U.S. __, __,

115 S.Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995). See also United States v. Miles, 10

F.3d 1135, 1137 n.3 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e caution counsel to state

specifically in the opening brief the issues raised on appeal; the

failure to do so will usually result in our not considering

them.”). Accordingly, because Sanchez-Rocha has failed to raise as

error in this court the application of the good-faith exception to

the exclusionary rule, we do not review this portion of the
2 To raise the issue would not have aided Appellant’s cause since

the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Ramirez-Lujan, 976 F.2d

930 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 987 (1993).

3

district court’s ruling.2 Thus, the denial of Sanchez-Rocha’s

motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NICHOLAS HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL

CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-12228

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AUGUST 15,

2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [23]

Currently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s August 15, 2016 report and

recommendation. The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record

and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the

matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 09-10933, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2012)

(citation omitted). The Court nevertheless agrees with the magistrate judge’s

recommendation. The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

2:15-cv-12228-NGE-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 09/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 148
Dated: September 7, 2016

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

on September 7, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-12228-NGE-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 09/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 149
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Clyde R. Wallin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  August 17, 2006  /s/ Clyde R. Wallin  Clyde R. Wallin   Chief Financial Officer and
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2423 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2423

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. BUILDING DESIGNATION.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the first day on which George P. 
Kazen is no longer serving as a Federal judge.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2423

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
```
#### § 32.65-25 Living quarters—TB/ALL.

Partitions and sheathing shall be of approved fire-resistive construction.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ARLENE PREUDHOMME , Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS and GARTH BAILEY , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 15

- 3640

[ June 15, 2016]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael L. Gates , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 14

- 004538 (12)

.
Arlene Preudhomme, Pembroke Pines, pro se.

Joseph S. Geller of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Christopher Matthews.

P ER C URIAM

.

We r everse the order granting the motion to quash service of process.

A plaintiff seeking to “ invoke the court ’ s jurisdiction bears the burden of proving proper service

, ” which requires a showing that the return of service is “facially valid or regular on its face.” Koster v. Sullivan , 160 So. 3d 385, 38 9 (Fla. 2015). “If the return is regular on its face, then the service of process is presumed to be valid and the party challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” Id . (quoting Re

– Emp ’ t Servs., Ltd. v. Nat ’ l Loan Acquisitions Co

., 969 So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)) ; see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bornstein , 39 So. 3d 500, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)

. Thus,

a defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying service, but must present “clear and convincing evid ence” to corroborate his denial of service. Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Clear and convincing evidence requires that the witnesses to a fact be credible; the facts testified to must be distinctly remembered; the details- 2

- m ust be narrated exactly and in order; the testimony must be clear, direct and weighty; and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue.

Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co ., 548 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) ;

see also Bornstein

, 39 So. 3 d at 503 (stating “clear and convincing evidence” standard for overcoming presumption of valid service)

.
Here, appellant met her initial burden of establishing the validity of service, as the return of service was regular on its face. The burden thus shifted to appellee to demonstrate that the place of service was not his usual place of abode. Appellee presented no documentation or live testimony at the hearing on the motion to quash, only his affidavit, which fell short of the “clear and convin cing evidence” standard. See Johnson v. Christiana Tr

. , 166 So. 3d 940, 943

- 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Reversed and remanded

.

G ROSS , C ONNER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.