alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012217EN.01000602.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Impacto Azul, Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA and Others

(Case C-186/12)

2012/C 217/11

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impacto Azul, Lda

Applicant:

Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, Bouygues Imobiliária, SGPS, Lda, Bouygues Immobilier S.A., Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 49 TFEU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European [Union], for the application of the rules in Article 501 of the [Portuguese Code of Commercial Companies] to undertakings having their seat in another Member State to be excluded pursuant to the rules contained in Article 481(2) of [that code]?

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7345
BOBBY L. COMPTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RALPH DOBBINS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-987-7) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby L. Compton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bobby L. Compton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U .S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Compton v. Dobbins , No. CA-02-987-7 (W.D. Va. filed Aug. 28, 2002 & entered Aug. 29, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 4.05-30 Incidents involving hazardous materials.

When a casualty occurs involving hazardous materials, notification and a written report to the Department of Transportation may be required. See 49 CFR 171.15 and 171.16.

[CGD 76-170, 45 FR 77441, Nov. 24, 1980]
#### § 42.05-65 Surveyor.

The term *surveyor* means any person designated by the American Bureau of Shipping or other classification society recognized by the Commandant as the person who actually examines the vessel and/or materials associated with such examination, and who ascertains such vessel complies with applicable load line requirements.

[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10052, July 12, 1968]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2444 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to make the funding available for 

carrying out section 140 of title 23 mandatory instead of discretionary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to make the funding 

available for carrying out section 140 of title 23 mandatory instead of discretionary. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR NONDISCRIMINATION PROVI4 SIONS. 

5 The last sentence of section 140(b) of title 23, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘not to exceed’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘may be’’ and inserting ‘‘shall 

9 be’’; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2444 IH

1 (3) by striking ‘‘upon request of the State 

2 transportation department to the Secretary’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUNDANCE, INC. and 

MERLOT TARPAULIN AND

SIDEKIT MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 02-73543

DEMONTE FABRICATING LTD. and HON. AVERN COHN

QUICK DRAW TARPAULIN SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER STAYING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

This is a patent case tried to a jury. Plaintiffs Sundance, Inc. and Merlot

Tarpaulin and Sidekit Manufacturing Company, Inc. (collectively, Sundance), holder of

U.S. Patent No. 5,026,109 (the ‘109 patent) covering a Segmented Cover System, sued

DeMonte Fabricating, Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems Inc. (collectively,

DeMonte) for infringement of the ‘109 patent. The case was tried to a jury. The jury

found the patent invalid and infringed.

Sundance moved for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new

trial on the finding of invalidity. The Court granted the motion, finding the patent valid. 

DeMonte has moved for reconsideration. Also pending before the Court is DeMonte’s

motion for summary judgment on inequitable conduct. Meanwhile, the ‘109 patent is the

subject of a second re-examination before the United States Patent Office (USPTO). 

The Court has the inherent power to control and manage its docket, which

2:02-cv-73543-AC Doc # 155 Filed 10/03/06 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2532
2

includes the authority to order a stay pending the outcome of reexamination

proceedings in the USPTO. See Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir.

1983); Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir.1988). In determining whether

to stay litigation pending reexamination by the USPTO, courts generally consider the

following factors: “(1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical

disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in

question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial

date has been set.” Xerox Corp. v. 3 Comm Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 404, 406 (W.D.N.Y.

1999)(citations omitted).

Consideration of the relevant factors under the circumstances, particularly as

expressed at the status conference on October 3, 2006, weighs in favor of a stay. 

Accordingly, all proceedings in this case are STAYED until further order of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of

record on this date, October 3, 2006, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:02-cv-73543-AC Doc # 155 Filed 10/03/06 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2533
[BDO
Seidman, LLP Letterhead]





March 31,
2010





Board of
Directors


Berliner
Communications, Inc.


1777
Sentry Parkway West


Blue
Bell, Pennsylvania




As stated
in Note 2 to the financial statements of Berliner Communications, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2009, the Company changed its method of accounting for
goodwill as it has changed the date at which it performs the annual goodwill and
indefinite lived intangible impairment test from January 1 to December
31.  The Company states that the newly adopted accounting principle is
preferable in the circumstances because this change ensures the completion of
the annual goodwill impairment test prior to the end of the annual reporting
period which was changed to December 31 from June 30, thereby aligning
impairment testing procedures with year-end financial reporting. In connection
with our audit of the above mentioned financial statements, we have evaluated
the circumstances and the business judgment and planning which formulated your
basis to make the change in accounting principle.




It should
be understood that criteria have not been established by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board for selecting from among the alternative accounting
principles that exist in this area. Further, the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants has not established the standards by which an auditor can
evaluate the preferability of one accounting principle among a series of
alternatives. However, for purposes of the Company’s compliance with the
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this
letter.




Based on
our audit, we concur in management’s judgment that the newly adopted accounting
principle described in Note 2 is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating
this position, we are relying on management’s business planning and judgment,
which we do not find to be unreasonable.




Very
truly yours,




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

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending December 15, 2007

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

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 45.15 Exemptions. ( a ) The Commandant may exempt a ship from any of the requirements in this part if the chairman of the board of Steamship Inspections, Department of Transport, Canada, and the Commandant agree that the sheltered nature or the condition of that voyage make it unreasonable or impracticable to apply requirements of this part.
( b ) The Commandant may exempt a vessel that embodies features of a novel kind from any of the requirements of this part if those requirements might seriously impede research into the development of such features and their incorporation in ships. Any such vessel must comply with the safety requirements that, in the opinion of the Commandant, are adequate for the service for which the vessel is intended and will insure the overall safety of the vessel. If the Commandant grants an exemption pursuant to this paragraph he communicates the details of the exemption and the reasons therefor to the chairman of the board of Steamship Inspections.
( c ) A vessel that is not normally engaged on voyages to which this part applies but that, in exceptional circumstances, is required to undertake a single such voyage between two specific ports may be exempted by the Commandant from any of the requirements of this part, if the ship complies with safety requirements that, in the opinion of the Commandant are adequate for the voyage that is to be undertaken by the vessel.
( d ) Unmanned dry cargo river barges carrying non-hazardous cargoes on certain routes on Lake Michigan may be exempted from load line requirements in accordance with the conditions specified in subpart E of this part.
[CGD 73-49R, 38 FR 12290, May 10, 1973, as amended by CGD 84-058, 50 FR 19533, May 9, 1985; USCG-1998-4623, 67 FR 19690, Apr. 23, 2002]
§ 27.203 What are the requirements for fire detection on towing vessels? ( a ) You must have a fire detection system installed on your vessel to detect engine-room fires. Any owner of a vessel whose construction was contracted for before January 18, 2000, may use an existing engine-room-monitoring system (with fire detection capability) instead of a fire detection system, if the monitoring system is operable and complies with this section. You must ensure that— ( 1 ) Each detector, each control panel, and each fire alarm are approved under 46 CFR subpart 161.002 or listed by an independent testing laboratory; except that, if you use an existing engine-room-monitoring system (with fire detection capability), each detector must be listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL), as defined in 46 CFR 161.002-2, for fire service;
( 2 ) The system is installed, tested, and maintained in line with the manufacturer's design manual;
( 3 ) The system is arranged and installed so a fire in the engine room automatically sets off alarms on a control panel at the operating station;
( 4 ) The control panel includes— ( i ) A power-available light;
( ii ) Both an audible alarm to notify crew at the operating station of fire and visible alarms to identify the zone or zones of origin of the fire;
( iii ) A means to silence the audible alarm while maintaining indication by the visible alarms;
( iv ) A circuit-fault detector test-switch; and
( v ) Labels for all switches and indicator lights, identifying their functions;
( 5 ) The system draws power from two sources, switchover from the primary source to the secondary source being either manual or automatic;
( 6 ) The system serves no other purpose, unless it is an engine-room-monitoring system (with fire detection capability) installed on a vessel whose construction was contracted for before January 18, 2000; and
( 7 ) The system is certified by a registered professional engineer, or by a recognized classification society (under 46 CFR part 8), to comply with paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.
( b ) In spaces other than the engine room, non-approved fire detection systems may be acceptable as excess equipment provided that— ( 1 ) Components are listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.7, and is designed, installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the manufacturer's specific guidance; and
( 2 ) The system and units remain functional as intended.
[USCG-2000-6931, 69 FR 34069, June 18, 2004, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48246, July 22, 2016]
§ 42.07-55 Cancellation of load line certificates or exemption certificates. ( a ) Since vessels described in § 42.03-5 or § 42.03-10 when found qualified are issued appropriate load line certificates or load line exemption certificates, under U.S. responsibility as indicated in § 42.07-45 such certificates may be canceled by proper U.S. authority for due cause, including one or more of the causes listed in paragraph (b) of this section. Such action may occur prior to the expiration date on the certificate and normal certificate surrender. The cancellation of such certificate means that the correctness of load line marks and compliance with conditions of assignment for the named vessel no longer are recognized by the United States and that the existing assigned load line marks are voided.
( b ) Certain causes for automatic cancellation of certificates are: ( 1 ) The conditions of assignment have not been maintained as required by this subchapter.
( 2 ) Material alterations have taken place in the hull or superstructure of the vessel, which will necessitate the assignment of an increased freeboard.
( 3 ) The fittings and appliances have not been maintained in an effective condition for the protection of openings, guardrails, freeing ports, and means of access to crew's quarters.
( 4 ) The structural strength of the vessel is lowered to such an extent that the vessel is unsafe.
( 5 ) The load line certificate or International Load Line Exemption Certificate is not endorsed to show the vessel has been surveyed annually or periodically by the issuing authority as required by this part or the 1966 Convention.
( 6 ) Issuance of a new load line certificate for the same vessel.
( 7 ) Surrender of a certificate for cancellation when required.
( 8 ) The owner, master, or agent of the vessel has furnished false or fraudulent information in or with the application for a certificate.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10054, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9012, June 5, 1969]
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Accounting Officer of
Consolidated Medical Management, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 1992 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C. 63.
           -------------------------------------------------

I, Timothy G. Byrd, Sr., the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Accounting
Officer of Consolidated Medical Management, Inc. hereby certify that to my
knowledge, Consolidated Medical Management's periodic report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and the financial statements
contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of the operations of Consolidated Medical Management, Inc.



         Date:  August 13, 2004             /s/  Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Consolidated Medical Management


Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Accounting Officer of
Consolidated Medical Management, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 1992 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C. 63.
           -------------------------------------------------

I, Timothy G. Byrd, Sr., the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Accounting
Officer of Consolidated Medical Management, Inc. hereby certify that to my
knowledge, Consolidated Medical Management's periodic report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and the financial statements
contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of the operations of Consolidated Medical Management, Inc.



         Date:  August 13, 2004             /s/  Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Consolidated Medical Management


                                       14
A division of the American Chemical Society 

lnventoryExpertService 

Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870 

Fax:614-447-3747 

E-mail: answers@cas.org 

Web: www.cas.org/products/other-cas-products/client-services/ 

INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT 

IES Order Number: 350522 

Registry Number: Not Registered 

U CA Index Name: I rKI 

Ptease print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN. 

E

If this box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to your IES order. 

Please make the same corrections to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA. 

CAS • 2540 Olentangy River Road • P.O. Box 3343 • Columbus, OH 43210-0334 • USA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SHILOH MAIER,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 2-15-cv-12423

v. Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow

MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT, P.C.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), IT IS HEREBY

STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff, Shiloh Maier, and the Defendant, Mary Jane

M. Elliott, P.C., by and through their respective counsel of record that the entire

above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear their own

respective fees and costs.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 17, 2015

THE FOREGOING IS STIPULATED:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

/s/ Mark Small (P26976) /s/ Brian C. Truba (P61752)

656 W, Frank St. MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT, PC

Birmingham, MI 48009 24300 Karim Blvd.

(248) 376-3110 Novi, MI 48375

msmall@smallslaw.com (248) 306-2000

brian@mjelliott.com

Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 8 filed 09/17/15 PageID.38 Page 1 of 1
§ 54.01-35 Corrosion (modifies UG-25). ( a ) Vessels or portions of vessels subject to corrosion must be as required by UG-25 of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 54.01-1) except as noted otherwise in this section.
( b ) The pressure portions of pressure vessels must: ( 1 ) Normally have a corrosion allowance of one-sixth of the calculated thickness, or one-sixteenth inch, whichever is smaller, added to the calculated thickness as determined by the applicable design formula.
( 2 ) Be specifically evaluated in cases where unusually corrosive cargoes will be involved, for the possible increase of this corrosion allowance.
( 3 ) Have no additional thickness required when acceptable corrosion resistant materials are used.
( 4 ) Not normally need additional thickness allowance when the effective stress (either S or SE depending on the design formula used) is 80 percent or less of the allowable stress listed in Section VIII of the ASME BPVC for calculating thickness.
( c ) Telltale holes must not be permitted in pressure vessels containing dangerous fluids, such as acid, poison, corrosives, etc.
( d ) Exemption from these corrosion allowance requirements will be granted by the Commandant in those cases where: ( 1 ) The contents of the pressure vessel are judged to be sufficiently noncorrosive; and,
( 2 ) Where the external surface is also protected from corrosion. A suitable vapor barrier is adequate protection, while paint or other thin coatings exposed to weather or mechanical damage are not acceptable.
( e ) No applied linings except as provided in part UCL of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC are acceptable.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18828, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGFR 72-59R, 37 FR 6189, Mar. 25, 1972; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65167, Oct. 31, 2008]
§ 42.05-30 Existing vessel. ( a ) As used in this part 42, for a vessel engaged on international voyages or on domestic voyages by sea, the term *existing vessel* means a vessel which is not a new vessel. With few exceptions an *existing vessel* is a vessel the keel of which was laid, or which was at a similar stage of construction, prior to July 21, 1968. (See § 42.05-50 for the definition of a new vessel.)
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) As used in part 44 of this subchapter, for a vessel marked with load lines for special service on a coastwise or interisland voyage, the term *existing vessel* means one whose keel was laid prior to September 28, 1937. (See § 44.01-20 of this subchapter.)
( e ) As used in part 45 of this subchapter, *existing vessel* in all regulations pertaining to a vessel engaged solely on Great Lakes voyages before April 14, 1973, means a vessel whose keel was laid before August 27, 1936. The regulations pertaining to these vessels that are in effect after April 14, 1973, do not use the term *existing vessel.*
( f ) As used in part 46 of this subchapter, for a passenger vessel marked with subdivision load lines, the term *existing vessel* means a vessel whose keel was laid or was converted to such service prior to May 26, 1965. (See § 46.05-30 of this subchapter.)
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10051, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGD 73-49R, 38 FR 12290, May 10, 1973; CGD 80-120, 47 FR 5722, Feb. 8, 1982]