alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 29812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12618]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7463]

In the Matter of the Designation of Army of Islam, aka Jaish al-
Islam, aka Jaysh al-Islam; as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the organization known as Army of Islam, 
also known as Jaish al-Islam, also known as Jaysh al-Islam, has 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 9, 2011.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-12618 Filed 5-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13a) 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      30, 2009 |                                                              |                          |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                |                                                              | /s/      D. Jonathan Merriman |
|                | D.      Jonathan MerrimanChairman      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

|   |                                              |                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|   |                                              | /s/      Peter V. Coleman |
|   | Peter      V. ColemanChief      Financial Officer |

----
§ 56.50-90 Sounding devices. ( a ) Each tank must be provided with a suitable means of determining liquid level. Except for a main cargo tank on a tank vessel, each integral hull tank and compartment must be fitted with a sounding pipe or other level indicating device acceptable to the Marine Safety Center.
( b ) Where sounding pipes terminate below the freeboard deck on cargo vessels, they must be fitted with gate valves. On passenger vessels, where sounding pipes terminate below the bulkhead deck, they must be fitted with gate valves.
( c ) Except as allowed by this paragraph, on each vessel constructed on or after June 9, 1995, no sounding pipe used in a fuel-oil tank may terminate in any space where the risk of ignition of spillage from the pipe might arise. None may terminate in a space for passengers or crew. When the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, determines it impracticable to avoid terminating a pipe in a machinery space, a sounding pipe may terminate in a machinery space if all the following requirements are met: ( 1 ) The fuel-oil tank has an oil-level gauge complying with paragraph (d) of this section.
( 2 ) Precautions are taken such as fitting an effective screen (shield) to prevent the fuel oil, in case of spillage through the end of the pipe, from coming into contact with a source of ignition.
( 3 ) The end of the pipe is fitted with a self-closing blanking device.
( d ) Other oil-level gauges may be used instead of sounding pipes if all the following requirements are met: ( 1 ) In a passenger vessel, no such gauge may require penetration below the top of the tank, and neither the failure of a gauge nor an overfilling of the tank may permit release of fuel into the space.
( 2 ) In a cargo vessel, neither the failure of such a gauge nor an overfilling of the tank may permit release of fuel into the space. The use of cylindrical gauge-glasses is prohibited. The use of oil-level gauges with flat glasses and self-closing valves between the gauges and fuel tanks is acceptable.
( e ) The upper ends of sounding pipes must be closed by a screw cap or plug.
( f ) On mobile offshore drilling units where installation of sounding pipes may not be practicable for some tanks, alternate means of determining liquid level may be used if approved by the Commandant.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18843, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56800, Dec. 4, 1978; CGD 83-043, 60 FR 24774, May 10, 1995; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51201, Sept. 30, 1997]
§ 197.208 Designation of person-in-charge. ( a ) The owner or agent of a vessel or facility without a designated master shall designate, in writing, an individual to be the person-in-charge of the vessel or facility.
( b ) Where a master is designated, the master is the person-in-charge.
<PAGE>

                                               [Ernst & Young Logo Appears Here]

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
To The Board of Directors and Shareholders Mutual Risk Management Ltd.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Mutual Risk
Management Ltd. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of (loss) income and comprehensive (loss)
income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2000. Our audits also included the
financial statement schedules listed in the Index at Item 14(B). These
financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements and schedules based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements
are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test
basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Mutual Risk
Management Ltd. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2000, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Also, in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedules, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young

Hamilton, Bermuda
February 15, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                                               [ERNST & YOUNG LOGO APPEARS HERE]




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS
MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 33-44124, 33-55282, 333-05008, 333-77359 and 333-80741) and Form S-3
(Nos. 333-64419, 333-11053, 333-75505 and 333-96425) of Mutual Risk Management
Ltd. of our report dated February 15, 2001 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of Mutual Risk Management Ltd. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young


Hamilton, Bermuda
March 30, 2001
#### § 5.303 Service of subpoenas on behalf of the respondent.

Service of subpoenas issued on behalf of the respondent is the responsibility of the respondent. However, if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the respondent or respondent's counsel is physically unable to effect the service, despite diligent and bona fide attempts to do so, and if the Administrative Law Judge further finds that the existing impediment to the service of the subpoena is peculiarly within the authority of the Coast Guard to overcome, the Administrative Law Judge will have the subpoena delivered to an investigating officer participating in the case for the purpose of effecting service.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-12054

HON. AVERN COHN

DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH

TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING (Doc. 37)

I.

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case. It has been referred to a magistrate

judge for pretrial proceedings. See Doc. 6. After service, defendants filed a motion for

enlargement on time in which to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 33). The magistrate

judge granted the motion and ordered defendants to file a response on or before

November 30, 2015. (Doc. 34). Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to the

magistrate judge’s order. (Doc. 37). For the reasons that follow, the objections are

DENIED.

II.

When a party files timely objections to a magistrate judge's opinion and order

concerning a nondispositive matter, the district judge “must consider [these] objections

and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 45 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 371
review; “[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same

effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,

932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.1991).

Here, defendant seeks review of the magistrate judge's decision to grant

defendants additional time to respond to the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s

objections and finds that the magistrate judge did not clearly err in granting defendants’

motion. Although plaintiff complains that the magistrate judge granted the motion before

plaintiff had an opportunity to respond, the magistrate judge exercised its discretion in

granting the motion, in which defendants demonstrated good cause for the extension, and

plaintiff cannot show prejudice. Moreover, as defendants have now filed a response, in

the form of a motion to sever (Doc. 40), plaintiff’s objections are also moot.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

 AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 7, 2016

Detroit, Michigan

2

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 45 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 372
Exhibit
10.4


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


(Nonstatutory
Stock Option)


 


This Amendment No. 1 to Stock Option
Agreement (this “Amendment”) is
made and entered into as of January 25, 2005 by and between Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc., an Oregon corporation (the “Company”), and Nicholas Konidaris (“Optionee”). 
The Company and Optionee are parties to a Stock Option Agreement dated
as of July 13, 2004 (the “Original
Agreement”).  Capitalized
terms in this Amendment which are not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Original Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the usual
promises hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.                                       A new paragraph
is inserted at the end of the Original Agreement to read in its entirety as
follows:


 


“The Board of Directors,
in its discretion, may accelerate the vesting of any of the shares subject to
the option (the “Accelerated Shares”), in which event the Accelerated Shares
shall be restricted upon exercise, with the restriction to lapse with respect
to 6,079 Accelerated Shares on each Full Vest date following the date of
acceleration (by way of example, if the vesting of all of Optionee’s unvested
options is accelerated effective August 1, 2005, the restriction on
6,079 of the Accelerated Shares would lapse on July 13, 2005, the
restriction on another 6,079 of the Accelerated Shares would lapse on July 13,
2006, the restriction on another 6,079 of the Accelerated Shares would
lapse on July 13, 2007 and the restriction on the remaining Accelerated
Shares would lapse on July 13, 2008); provided, further, that such
restrictions shall lapse upon any event under the Employment Agreement that
would have caused the option to become immediately exercisable prior to the
acceleration described in this section. 
For purposes of this section, the restriction on the Accelerated Shares
prohibits Optionee from selling, assigning, pledging, or in any manner
transferring such restricted Accelerated Shares, or any right or interest in
such restricted Accelerated Shares, whether voluntarily or by operation of law,
or by gift, bequest or otherwise.  Any
sale or transfer, or purported sale or transfer, of restricted Accelerated
Shares, in violation of this provision shall be null and void.”


 


2.                                       Except as set
forth in Section 1 hereof, the terms of the Original Agreement are
unchanged and remain in full force and effect.


 


(Signature pages follow)


 





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
caused this Amendment to be duly executed and effective as of the date first
written above.


 


	
  COMPANY:

  	
  ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  OPTIONEE:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Nicholas Konidaris
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.230 Stowage of survival craft. ( a ) To meet the requirements of § 199.130(b)(1), each lifeboat on a passenger vessel of 80 meters (262 feet) in length and upwards must be stowed where the after-end of the lifeboat is at least 1.5 times the length of the lifeboat forward of the vessel's propeller.
( b ) The stowage height of a survival craft must take into account the vessel's escape provisions, the vessel's size, and the weather conditions likely to be encountered in the vessel's intended area of operation.
( c ) The height of the davit head of each davit when it is in position to launch the survival craft should, as far as practicable, not exceed 15 meters (49 feet) to the waterline when the vessel is in its lightest seagoing condition.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

R-ZAQ, INC., BADER OBEID A/K/A 

BADER M. OBEID D/B/A CARPET 

MILLS OF AMERICA AND CARPET 

MILLS,

APPELLANTS,

V.

MOHAWK SERVICING, LLC,

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00065-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 2012-005830-2)

APPELLEE. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mohawk Servicing, LLC, Appellee, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. 

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

On March 14, 2013, the trial court entered judgment against Appellants, R-ZAQ, Inc., 

Bader Obeid a/k/a Bader M. Obeid d/b/a Carpet Mills of America and Carpet Mills and awarded

damages in the amount of $42,929.52 plus pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees. Mohawk 

Servicing subsequently filed a motion for a receivership alleging that Appellants had not paid the 

judgment and had failed to respond to post-judgment discovery. On December 3, 2014, the trial 

court entered an order appointing a receiver under the Texas Turnover Statute with authority to 

take possession of and sell Appellants’ non-exempt assets. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE 

ANN. § 31.002(b)(3)(West 2015)(authorizing a court to appoint a receiver with the authority to 
- 2 -

take possession of the nonexempt property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor 

to the extent required to satisfy the judgment). Appellants timely filed notice of appeal 

indicating their intent to appeal the order appointing the receiver. While the appeal was pending, 

the receiver, with the agreement of the parties, filed an application to close the receivership. The 

trial court granted that application and entered an order which approved the actions taken by the 

receiver, terminated the receivership, and discharged the receiver.

Mohawk Servicing asserts in its motion that the appeal should be dismissed because the 

termination of the receivership has rendered the appeal moot. Appellants have not filed any 

response to the motion to dismiss. An appellate court is prohibited from deciding moot 

controversies. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). 

A case is moot if a justiciable controversy ceases to exist at any stage of the legal proceedings, 

including the appeal. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). We 

conclude that the order terminating the receivership and discharging the receiver has rendered 

the appeal moot. See Rogers v. PLS Water Company, Inc., No. 14-94-1135-CV, 1996 WL 28791

(Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ dism’d w.o.j.)(not designated for 

publication)(holding that order terminating the receivership rendered moot the appeal from an 

order authorizing further action by the receiver and the receiver’s order to seize). Accordingly, 

we grant Mohawk Servicing’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

April 24, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### Van Buren Wheat and Joseph F. Salisbury, *Respondents, v.*Harvey Rice and others, *Appellants.*

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Opinion by

Haight, J.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1492

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that service performed for an elementary or secondary school operated primarily for

religious purposes is exempt from the Federal unemployment tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 7, 1995

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that service performed for an elementary or secondary

school operated primarily for religious purposes is exempt

from the Federal unemployment tax.

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

3 That (a) section 3309(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code

4 of 1986 (relating to exemption from unemployment tax)

5 is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end

6 thereof the following: ‘‘, or (C) an elementary or secondary

7 school which is operated primarily for religious purposes,
2

•HR 1492 IH

1 which is described in section 501(c)(3), and which is ex2 empt from tax under section 501(a)’’.

3 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

4 apply to services performed after December 31, 1995.

Æ
SERVED: JANUARY 25, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GRANT AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-1265 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

3 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011AL030031) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DG 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Brent R. Cole, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK.99501 

TEL: 907-277-8001 

FAX: 907-277-8002 

ONE COPY 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 W. 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 . 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-1265 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-