alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 5.715 Stay of effect of Decision of the Commandant on Appeal: Temporary credential and/or endorsement pending appeal to National Transportation Safety Board. ( a ) A Decision of the Commandant on Appeal affirming an order of revocation, except a revocation resulting from an offense enumerated under § 5.59 or suspension that is not placed entirely on probation, which is appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board, may be stayed if, in the Commandant's opinion, the service of the appellant on board a vessel at that time or for the indefinite future would be compatible with the requirements of safety at sea and consistent with applicable laws. If one of the offenses enumerated in § 5.61(a) has been found proved, the continued service of the appellant will be presumed not compatible with safety at sea, subject to rebuttal by the appellant; in cases of offenses under § 5.61(a), a temporary credential and/or endorsement may be denied for that reason alone.
( b ) A stay of the effect of the Decision of the Commandant on Appeal may be granted by the Commandant upon application by the respondent filed with the notice served on the Commandant under 49 CFR 825.5(b).
( c ) An Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, on presentation of an original stay order, issues a temporary credential and/or endorsement as specified in the stay order. This credential and/or endorsement is effective for not more than six months, renewable until such time as the National Transportation Safety Board has completed its review.
[CGD 82-002, 50 FR 32184, Aug. 9, 1985, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11215, Mar. 16, 2009]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains financial information extracted from Columbia
Futures Fund and is qualified in its entirety to reference to such
financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,736,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,687<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,083,483<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,083,483<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             (254,058)<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               193,632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (447,690)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (447,690)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (447,690)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $31,254 and due from DWR
of $13,433.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $302,597.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $62,692, accrued management
fees of $29,932 and administrative expenses payable of $73,868.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $(40,328), net change
in unrealized of $(309,154) and interest income of $95,424.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 550.502 Discovery.

The Commission may authorize a party to a proceeding to use depositions, written interrogatories, and discovery procedures that, to the extent practicable, are in conformity with the rules applicable in civil proceedings in the district courts of the United States.
§ 92.01-90 Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952. ( a ) Existing structure previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as it is maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to the same standard as the original construction.
#### § 32.30-1 Voice tubes or telephone equipment—T/ALL.

Each tankships must have communication equipment which meets the requirements in subchapter J (Electrical Engineering Regulations) of this chapter.

[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15230, Apr. 8, 1982]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1608 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1608

To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that the prohibitions 
 against guns in school zones have the requisite nexus with interstate 
                          or foreign commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 1995

 Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that the prohibitions 
 against guns in school zones have the requisite nexus with interstate 
                          or foreign commerce.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMMERCE NEXUS IN THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST GUNS IN SCHOOL 
              ZONES.

    Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in each 
of paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(A) by inserting ``that has moved in or 
that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce,'' after 
``firearm''.
                                 <all>
```
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FRANK LEONARD BUTZ, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-12232 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

JERRY CLAYTON, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #21) 

AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #9)

On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff Frank Leonard Butz (“Butz”) filed a Complaint 

against Defendant Jerry Clayton (“Clayton”), the Washtenaw County Sherriff. (See 

ECF #1.) Among other things, Butz alleges that while he was incarcerated at the 

Washtenaw County Jail, employees at the jail prevented him from taking a courtmandated educational course. (See id. at 3, Pg. ID 3.) Butz also claims that the 

disciplinary system at the Washtenaw County Jail “is ambiguous,” and that some 

of the internal messages (called “kites”) Butz sent while incarcerated at the jail 

were never delivered. (Id.) On March 3, 2015, Clayton filed a motion to dismiss 

the Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #9.) 

On March 7, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and 

recommendation (the “R&R”) in which he recommended that the Court grant the 

2:15-cv-12232-MFL-APP Doc # 23 Filed 05/02/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 275
2 

Motion to Dismiss because Butz “has failed to state a claim upon which relief 

maybe granted.” (ECF #21 at 13, Pg. ID 271.) 

At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed the parties 

that they “may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but 

are required to file any objections within 14 days of service.” (Id.) The parties 

were also told that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of 

any further right of appeal.” (Id.) 

Butz has not filed any objections to the R&R. As the Magistrate Judge 

informed the parties, the failure to file an objection to a report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health 

and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of 

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to 

object releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has nevertheless reviewed 

the R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (ECF #21) is 

ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for 

the reasons stated in the R&R, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF #9) is GRANTED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: May 2, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-12232-MFL-APP Doc # 23 Filed 05/02/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 276
3 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on May 2, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-12232-MFL-APP Doc # 23 Filed 05/02/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 277
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 Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Leeward Biotechnology, Inc. of Hartland, Wisconsin, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 5,451,400, “Mucosal Competitive Exclusion Flora”, issued on September 19, 1995.

# DATES:

Comments must be received by July 26, 2007.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

the Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture.  It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Leeward Biotechnology, Inc. of Hartland, Wisconsin has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license.  The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.  The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 07-3132 Filed 6-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-03-M
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - K-Tronik International Corp. - Exhibit 10.1





 K-TRONIK TO SELL BALLAST BUSINESS 

 Hackensack, New Jersey, January 20, 2005 – K-Tronik
  International Corp. (OTCBB: KTRK) ("K-Tronik") announces that it has entered
  into an agreement (the “Agreement”) to sell all of its interest
  in and to the fixed assets of its subsidiary, K-Troniks Asia Ltd. (“K-Troniks
  Asia”) for consideration of USD$260,000 (the “Purchase Proceeds”).
  The purchaser is FineTech Co. Ltd. (“FineTech”). 

 The terms of the Agreement call for K-Troniks Asia
  to use the Purchase Proceeds to retire the debts of K-Troniks Asia to FineTech.
  

 K-Tronik and FineTech (collectively, the “Parties”)
  have also entered into concurrent letter and pledge agreements (the “Letter
  Agreement” and the “Pledge Agreement” respectively) whereby
  K-Tronik transfers to FineTech ownership of all of the issued and outstanding
  shares of K-Tronik N.A. Inc., its US subsidiary which owns K-Troniks Asia. 

 The transfer of the shares of K-Tronik N.A. Inc. has
  not yet been effected but is expected to be effected shortly. 

 The Agreement, the Letter Agreement and the Pledge
  Agreement are attached and provide full details as to their terms. All have
  been dated effective December 15, 2004 except for the Pledge Agreement which
  is dated December 10, 2004. 

 Prior to entering into these transactions with FineTech,
  K-Tronik was the sole shareholder of K-Tronik N.A. Inc. which produced electronic
  ballasts through its subsidiary K-Troniks Asia.

 Upon final closing of the agreements described above,
  it is expected that FineTech will own all of the issued and outstanding shares
  of K-Tronik N.A. Inc. and the assets of K-Troniks Asia. It is further expected
  that K-Tronik will no longer be engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing
  or selling electronic ballasts. 

 K-Tronik’s periodic reports are on file with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission and available through the EDGAR website at www.sec.gov.
  Any disclosure of financial or operating results in this news release is qualified
  by these periodic reports and readers should refer to them for full details
  regarding financial results. K-Tronik, headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey,
  is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq OTCBB Exchange. Visit K-Tronik's
  website at www.k-tronik.com. For more information please call Jason Moretto
  at (416) 216-8659 x302. 

 This press release contains forward-looking
  statements relating to future events and results that are based on K-Tronik’s
  current expectations. These statements involve risks and uncertainties including,
  without limitation, K-Tronik’s ability to successfully develop and market
  its products, consumer acceptance of such products, competitive pressures relating
  to price reductions, new product introductions by third parties, technological
  innovations and overall market conditions. Consequently, actual events and results
  in future periods may differ materially from those currently expected.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       EXHIBIT 11

                       NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                            COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE


                                                              Years ended June 30,
                                                          --------------------------
                                                               2001          2000
                                                          -------------  -----------
<S>                                                       <C>            <C>
Net loss                                                  $ (3,598,543)  (3,743,305)
                                                          =============  ===========


Weighted average number of common shares outstanding        51,147,026    32,709,638

Common equivalent shares representing shares issuable upon
  exercise of outstanding options and warrants                       -            -
                                                          -------------  -----------
                                                            51,147,026   32,709,638
                                                          =============  ===========

Basic and diluted loss per share:
   Loss from continuing operations                          $(    0.06)   (    0.11)
   Extraordinary loss                                        (    0.01)          -
                                                          -------------  -----------
                                                            $(    0.07)   (    0.11)
                                                          =============  ===========
</TABLE>

Stock  options and warrants are not considered in the calculations as the impact
of the potential common shares (9,022,661 shares at June 30, 2001 and 16,204,500
shares  at  June  30,  2000)  would  be  to  decrease  loss  per  share.


<PAGE>
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, M.K. JAMISON, T.P. BELSKY

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHRISTOPHER M. BOCCIA

CORPORAL (E

- 4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 2 01400078

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 5 November 2013

. Military Judge: LtCol C.M. Greer, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Marine Attack

Squadron 223, Marine Aircraft Group 14, Cherry Point, N C

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommenda tion: Col J.J. Murphy

,

USMC.

For Appellant: CAPT Charles D. Stimson, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

26 June 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the C ourt

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6263

DANIEL TAYLOR , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
HAROLD CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv - 00703

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : June 2 9, 2021 Decided: July 2, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Daniel Taylor , Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from
latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstr ate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v.
McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
§ 42.15-50 Air pipes. ( a ) Where air pipes to ballast and other tanks extend above the freeboard or superstructure decks, the exposed parts of the pipes shall be of substantial construction; the height from the deck to the point where water may have access below shall be at least 30 inches on the freeboard deck and 171 ⁄ 2 inches on the superstructure deck. Where these heights may interfere with the working of the vessel, a lower height may be approved, provided the assigning authority is satisfied that the closing arrangements and other circumstances justify a lower height. Satisfactory means permanently attached, shall be provided for closing the openings of the air pipes.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10062, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9014, June 5, 1969]
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 August 3, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-10463

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

BRB Nos. 04-02057

& 04-0785

IMC GLOBAL, INC.,

TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY CORPORATION,

d.b.a. Constitution State Service Company,

Petitioners,

versus

BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD,

THOMAS F. SZADA, JR.,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

Respondents.

________________________

 Petition for Review of the Decision

of the Benefits Review Board

_________________________

(August 3, 2005)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

I.M.C., Global Inc. and Travelers Property & Casualty Corporation appeal the

decision of the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board affirming the

findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Administrative Law Judge on

Thomas F. Szada Jr.’s claim for benefits and attorneys’ fees under the Longshore and

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq. We have considered

the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, and find no reversible error. The decision

and order of the Benefits Review Board is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending April 10, 2010

|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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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