alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 42.09-20 Surveys of foreign vessels. ( a ) *General.* Foreign vessels of countries which have not ratified or acceded to the 1966 Convention, or which do not have valid certificates issued under other international convention or treaty and recognized by the United States of America, if desiring to depart from a port or place in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Territory of Guam, or other U.S. possessions, shall be subjected to survey, marking, and certification by a load line assigning and issuing authority as authorized under § 42.07-35 or § 42.07-40, unless: ( 1 ) The vessel is exempted by the provision of 46 U.S.C. 5102; or
( 2 ) The vessel is under tow and carrying neither passengers nor cargo.
( b ) *Scope of survey.* A periodical survey described in § 42.09-15(c) shall be conducted by and prove satisfactory to the assigning and issuing authority. It shall be made prior to issue or reissue of the applicable certificate.
( c ) *Certification of load lines.* The assigning and issuing authority after determining the vessel meets the applicable requirements in this part may issue a load line certificate subject to requirements in § 42.07-45 and on the applicable form described in subpart 42.50 of this part: *Provided,* That the load line certificate issued shall be valid for a period of 1 year. The certificate may be revalidated by endorsement for additional 1 year periods if the condition of the vessel so warrants, but in any event the certificate shall become void five (5) years from date of issue, or at the expiration of the fourth (4th) yearly validation, whichever occurs first. Whenever the condition of the vessel warrants special limitations, such information and facts shall be attested to on the front or back of the certificate as necessary, by the assigning and issuing authority.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10056, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9013, June 5, 1969; CGD 80-120, 47 FR 5723, Feb. 8, 1982; USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52190, Sept. 30, 1998]
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00172

- CR

RONALD DARRIN COMBS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 39840CR

O R D E R

Ronald Darrin Combs was convicted of aggravated assault. John Perkins, III was

appointed counsel for Combs on appeal. We have now received a motion to substitute

counsel requesting this Court to substitute Niles Illich for John Perkins, III as counsel fo r

Combs. We are not able to substitute counsel for Combs. See Enriquez v. State, 999

S.W.2d 906, 908 (Tex.App.

– Waco 1999, order). The trial court has the authority through

the Code of Criminal Procedure to relieve Perkins of his duties and appoint new counsel

for Combs’s appeal. Id . Any substitution of counsel and the related costs to the countyCombs v. State Page 2

should be determined by the trial court that appointed Perkins to Combs’s criminal

proceeding. Id

.

Accordingly, we deny the motion to substitute counsel. Original counsel, John

Perkins, III will remain lead counsel for Combs. Niles Illich has been added as additional

counsel for Combs in this appeal.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order is sued and filed July 30, 2015
#### § 1105.11 Transmittal letter for Applicant's Report.

A carrier shall send a copy of its Environmental and/or Historic Report to the agencies identified in section 1105.7(b) and/or the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer(s) and certify to the Board that it has done this. The form letter contained in the Appendix to this section should be used in transmitting the Environmental and/or Historic Reports.

# Appendix to § 1105.11—Transmittal Letter for Applicant's Report

(*Carrier Letterhead*)

(Addresses)

Re: (Brief description of proposed action with STB docket number, if available)

(Date)

On (date), we are (or expect to be) filing with the Surface Transportation Board a (type of proceeding) seeking authority to ( ) located in (state) (city or town) and (mileposts, if applicable). Attached is an Environmental Report (and/or Historic Report) describing the proposed action and any expected environmental (and/or historic) effects, as well as a map of the affected area.

We are providing this report so that you may review the information that will form the basis for the STB's independent environmental analysis of this proceeding. If any of the information is misleading or incorrect, if you believe that pertinent information is missing, or if you have any questions about the Board's environmental review process, please contact the Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA), Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC, telephone [INSERT TELEPHONE NUMBER] and refer to the above *Docket No.* (if available). Because the applicable statutes and regulations impose stringent deadlines for processing this action, your written comments to OEA (with a copy to our representative) would be appreciated within 3 weeks.

Your comments will be considered by the Board in evaluating the environmental and/or historic preservation impacts of the contemplated action. If there are any questions concerning this proposal, please contact our representative directly. Our representative in this matter is (name) who may be contacted by telephone at (telephone number) or by mail at (address).

(Complimentary close)

(Name and title of author of letter)

[56 FR 36105, July 31, 1991, as amended at 58 FR 44619, Aug. 24, 1993; 64 FR 53268, Oct. 1, 1999; 81 FR 8854, Feb. 23, 2016; 83 FR 15078, Apr. 9, 2018]
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: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending April 4, 2009

|Filer              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------ | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|COMPASS BANK       | * Branch       | Compass Bank, Birmingham, Alabama, to establish a branch located at 9400 Ed Robson Boulevard, Denton, Texas.                                                     | Newspaper:04/17/2009Federal Register:Not applicable    
|Newspaper:         | 04/17/2009    
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable
|RCB Financial Corp | 3A1            | RCB Financial Corporation, notice to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of River City Bank, both of Rome, Georgia. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | Not applicable
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable

## 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
#### Rand *v.*Merchants’ Despatch Transportation Co.

In an action referred by agreement under Laws of 1877, c. 20, *s.*1, there is no right of review.

Notice of review, returnable at the October term, 1880. Motion by the defendants to dismiss. The writ in the original action was dated September 20, 1877, and entered at the April term, 1878, the *ad damnum*being $250. At the October term, 1878, the action was referred by agreement, and at the April term, 1880, judgment was rendered on the referee’s report. The plaintiff claims the right of review.

Rolfe, for the plaintiff.

*A. F. Stevens*and *Chase Sf*Streeter, for the defendants.

Allen, J.

By the statute in force when the action was referred, it was provided that, in actions in which the parties should agree to a reference, judgment on the report of the referees should be final and conclusive. Laws of 1876, *e.*35, s. 1; Laws of 1877, *c.*20, *s.*1. • By agreeing to a reference, the plaintiff accepted all the provisions of the statute under which the reference was made, and waived the right of review. *Parker*v. Burns, 57 N. H. 602; *Deverson*v. Railroad, 58 N. H. 129 ; *Smith*v. Fellows, 58 N. H. 169; *Garland*v. Towne, 58 N. H. 187 ; *Daniels*v. Lebanon, 58 N. H. 284.

*Dismissed.*

Doe, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 72.40-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 72.40-90, shall apply to all vessels contracted for on or after July 1, 1969. Vessels contracted for prior to July 1, 1969, shall meet the requirements of § 72.40-90.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16903, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 69-72, 34 FR 17483, Oct. 29, 1969]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

FIRST FARMERS ANDMERCHANTS CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of First Farmers and Merchants Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date   | August 7,  2009 |   | /s/  T. Randy Stevens                                                   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                 |   | T.  Randy Stevens, Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |                 |   |  

                                                           |
| Date   | August 7,  2009 |   | /s/  Patricia P. Bearden                                                |
|   |                 |   | Patricia  P. Bearden, Assistant Treasurer (principal financial officer) |

 

----
#### Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Marsick.

[Cite as *Cincinnati Bar.Assn. v. Marsick*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1215.]

(No. 97-2257

Submitted and decided November 24, 1998.)

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent Philip J. Marsick, a.k.a. Philip John Marsick, Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0018685, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of April 29, 1998, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that Philip J. Marsick, a.k.a. Philip John Marsick, Jr., be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

For earlier case, see *Cincinnati Bar*Assn. *v. Marsick*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 551, 692 N.E.2d 991.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
### Served: March 2 2 , 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 2 2 nd of March, 2012

Essential Air Service at

ADAK, ALASKA ATKA, ALASKA NIKOLKSI, AL ASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 200 0

- 8556 DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 1995

- 363 DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 1995

- 363

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT ADAK , ATKA, AND NIKOLSKI
By Order 2010

- 7

- 9 the Department selected Alaska Airlines, Inc., to provide Essential Air Service (EAS) at Adak, Alaska, for $1,675,703, and Peninsula Airways, Inc., (PenAir) to provide E AS at Atka and Nikolski, Alaska, for $290,780 and $639,008, respectively. Rates a re set to expire on June 30, 2012. With the end of the contra ct approaching, by Order 201 2

- 2

- 8
, February 10 , 2012
, we requested proposals at the three communities by March 9, 2012. On March 1, 2012, PenAir requested a two

- week extension , until March 23, 2012, to submit proposals. By notice dated March 2, 2012, we extended the deadline for proposals to March 23, 2012, for all three communities.

On March 21, 2012, Grant Aviation, Inc., request ed a one

- week extension to March 30, 2012. In support of its request, Grant indicates that it only recently became aware o f the need for EAS proposals at Atka and Nikolski , that this would be the first time it h ad submitted an EAS proposal , and that it needed the extra time to provide a detailed and reasonable proposal.

We will grant the extension requested by Grant

. Prop osals at the three communities are now due on March 30 , 2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations .gov
<PAGE>
 
                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                                MGI PHARMA, INC.

                                  (unaudited)



The following information is required in computations of primary and fully
diluted loss per common share for each period:


                    Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                        September 30,                September 30,
                   -----------------------     ---------------------------
                       1997           1996        1997           1996
                 ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
Loss:
   Net loss      $   (136,842)  $ (1,982,652)  $ (1,495,425)  $ (4,041,024)

Common shares:
 Adjusted
  weighted
  shares
  outstanding (a)  14,135,191     13,096,384     14,108,178     12,893,031

Loss per common
 share:
   Net loss      $      (0.01)  $      (0.15)  $      (0.11)  $      (0.31)


(a) Net loss per common share shown on the face of the statements of
operations is the equivalent of a simple capital structure presentation since
it excludes common stock equivalents as their effect is antidilutive. There
are no pro forma fully diluted share outstanding adjustments, so primary and
fully diluted share amounts are identical.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY BOULDING,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 15-CV-12706-DT

BHAMUNI SUDHIR, ET AL.,

Defendants. / 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate R. Steven Whalen pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. In his report filed on October 8, 2016, the

magistrate judge recommended that this court grant Defendant Alfred Jones’ Motion to

Dismiss and dismiss Defendant Jones with prejudice. No objections have been filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1

Having reviewed the file and the report, the court concludes that the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for purposes of this

Order.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation, Defendant Alfred Jones’ Motion to Dismiss {Dkt # 38} is

GRANTED and the Jones is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 14, 2016

 1The failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the court from its duty to

independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

2:15-cv-12706-RHC-RSW Doc # 54 Filed 11/14/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 377
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or

pro se parties on this date, November 14, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2

2:15-cv-12706-RHC-RSW Doc # 54 Filed 11/14/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 378
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2408

PATSY G. VANCE, Widow of Kenneth Vance,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(92-1108-BLA)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patsy G. Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U.

Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision

and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.

1996). Appellant noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal

period established by 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (1988). A late notice of

appeal precludes this court's jurisdiction to review the decision

of the Board. Adkins v. Director, OWCP, 889 F.2d 1360, 1361 (4th

Cir. 1989). The Board entered its final order on March 13, 1995;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal deprives this court of

jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore grant the Director's motion to dismiss the appeal and suspend the briefing schedule. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Samuel Seeley, *Appellant, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Respondent*.

Judgment reversed and' new trial "ordered, costs to abide event. Smith, P. J., taking no part; opinion by

Haight, J.
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.30-2 Incorporation by Reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG), 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, (Phone (44 020 7735 7611); Web site: *http://www.imo.org .*) ( 1 ) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, 2012 Edition, Section: 4.2.0.1, IBR approved for § 98.30-3.
( 2 ) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, 2012 Edition, Section: 6.7.2 through 6.7.2.20.3, IBR approved for § 98.30-5.
[USCG-2011-0088, 78 FR 54785, Sept. 6, 2013]
§ 11.114 Cooperative Research. ( a ) Cooperative research projects are those projects covered by this policy that involve more than one institution. In the conduct of cooperative research projects, each institution is responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects and for complying with this policy.
( b ) ( 1 ) Any institution located in the United States that is engaged in cooperative research must rely upon approval by a single IRB for that portion of the research that is conducted in the United States. The reviewing IRB will be identified by the Federal department or agency supporting or conducting the research or proposed by the lead institution subject to the acceptance of the Federal department or agency supporting the research.
( 2 ) The following research is not subject to this provision: ( i ) Cooperative research for which more than single IRB review is required by law (including tribal law passed by the official governing body of an American Indian or Alaska Native tribe); or
( ii ) Research for which any Federal department or agency supporting or conducting the research determines and documents that the use of a single IRB is not appropriate for the particular context.
( c ) For research not subject to paragraph (b) of this section, an institution participating in a cooperative project may enter into a joint review arrangement, rely on the review of another IRB, or make similar arrangements for avoiding duplication of effort.
#### Anna E. Yates *v.*William E. Stiles.

Order modified as directed in opinion. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
#### § 505.1 Scope of regulations.

These regulations apply to the collection of debts owed to the United States arising from transactions with the Commission, or where a request for an offset is received by the Commission from another agency. These regulations are consistent with the Federal Claims Collection Standards on administrative offset issued jointly by the Department of Justice and the General Accounting Office as set forth in 4 CFR 102.3.