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

----

I Tiedonantoja

Komissio

----

Komission tiedonanto radio- ja telepäätelaitteista ja niiden vaatimustenmukaisuuden vastavuoroisesta tunnustamisesta 9 päivänä maaliskuuta 1999 annetun Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivin 1999/5/EY täytäntöönpanemiseksi

(2006/C 201/01)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

(Direktiivin soveltamisalaan kuuluvien yhdenmukaistettujen standardien nimet ja numerot)

Esimerkki: Standardille EN 60215:1989, pätee seuraava:

Huomautus:

----

(1)

----

----

Sähkömagneettista yhteensopivuutta koskevan jäsenvaltioiden lainsäädännön lähentämisestä 3 päivänä toukokuuta 1989 annetun neuvoston direktiivin 89/336/ETY täytäntöönpanoon liittyvä komission tiedonanto

(2006/C 201/02)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

(Direktiivin soveltamisalaan kuuluvien yhdenmukaistettujen standardien nimet ja numerot)

Yleinen huomautus: kun neljännessä sarakkeessa on viiva (korvattavan standardin kohdalla), tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että viitestandardia ei saa käyttää ilman lisäystä tai erityistä EMC-osaa.

Esimerkki: Standardille EN 61037:1992, pätee seuraava:

Tämä luettelo korvaa aiemmin Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä julkaistut luettelot.

----

(1)

----
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 1 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 2 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 3 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 4 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 5 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 6 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 7 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 8 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 9 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 10 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 11 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 12 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 13 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 14 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 15 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 16 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 17 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 18 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 19 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 20 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 21 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 22 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 23 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 24 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 25 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 26 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 27 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 28 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 29 of 30
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 30 of 30
No. 64798.

#### Ucagco, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/15772 (Boston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of butter dishes the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61910, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

BARBARA A. DWYER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff ) CIVIL ACTION 

 ) 

 v. ) NO: 02-CV-4353 

 ) 

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) 

 ) 

 Defendant ) 

____________________________________) 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE

 COMES NOW Defendant Integrated Technologies, Inc. (“ITEQ”), by counsel, and files 

this Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f). In support of this motion, as set forth more fully in the attached Memorandum of Points 

and Authorities, Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint in this case because neither the 

alleged unlawful employment practices, the relevant employment records, nor the location where 

Plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practices, are in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 3 Filed 09/30/2002 Page 1 of 2
 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion and 

dismiss the Complaint filed in this case. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BAZELON LESS & FELDMAN, P.C. 

BY: ________________________ 

Paul B. Bech 

1515 Market Street, Suite 700 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

(215) 568-1155 

Counsel for Defendant 

OF COUNSEL: 

Andrew P. Hallowell 

PILIERO, MAZZA & PARGAMENT, PLLC 

888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 857-1000 

DATED: September 30, 2002 

J:\ITEQ\ITEQ-Mot Dismiss .doc 

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 3 Filed 09/30/2002 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 1 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 2 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 3 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 4 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 5 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 6 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 7 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 8 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 9 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 10 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 11 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 12 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 13 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 14 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 15 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 16 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 17 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 18 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 19 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 20 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 21 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 22 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 23 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 24 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 25 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 26 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 27 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 28 of 29
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 28 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 29 of 29
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

20. júla 2006

(2006/C 169/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----

----

SVIATKY V ROKU 2007

(2006/C 169/02)

LUXEMBURSKO: rovnaké dni ako v Bruseli.

Vo štvrtok 3. januára 2008 sa začne pracovať.

Bez toho, aby bol dotknutý kalendár sviatkov na rok 2008, sa bude streda 2. január 2008 považovať v danom roku za sviatok.

Komisia si vyhradzuje právo zmeniť tieto ustanovenia, ak si to budú vyžadovať potreby útvaru.

----

----

SVIATKY V ROKU 2008

(2006/C 169/03)

LUXEMBURSKO: rovnaké dni ako v Bruseli, s výnimkou pondelka 21. júla, ktorý sa nahrádza pondelkom 23. júna, ktorý je štátnym sviatkom Luxemburska.

V pondelok 5. januára 2009 sa začne pracovať.

Bez toho, aby bol dotknutý kalendár sviatkov v roku 2009, sa budú štvrtok 1. januára 2009 a piatok 2. januára 2009 považovať v danom roku za sviatok.

Komisia si vyhradzuje právo zmeniť tieto ustanovenia, ak si to budú vyžadovať potreby útvaru.

----

----

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Prípad č. COMP M.4266 — Atel Energia/Azienda Energetica — Etschwerke/Enrg.IT)

Prípad, ktorý môže byť posúdený v zjednodušenom konaní

(2006/C 169/04)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)Ú. v. EÚ C 56, 5.3.2005, s. 32.

----
No. 49979.

#### Protests 936086-G, etc., of F. Blumenthal & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consisted of hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstracts 46497 and 47291, which records were admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the *197items in question were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1396 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1396

  To require that certain standards for commercial driver's licenses 
  applicable to former members of the armed services or reserves also 
      apply to current members of the armed services or reserves.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2017

  Ms. Warren (for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Tillis) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require that certain standards for commercial driver's licenses 
  applicable to former members of the armed services or reserves also 
      apply to current members of the armed services or reserves.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Active Duty Voluntary Acquisition of 
Necessary Credentials for Employment Act'' or the ``ADVANCE Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS FOR SERVICEMEMBERS AND 
              VETERANS.

    Section 31305(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Veteran 
        Operators'' and inserting ``Operators Who Are Members of the 
        Armed Forces, Reservists, or Veterans'';
            (2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``subparagraph (A) 
        during, at least,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)--
                            ``(i) while serving in the armed forces or 
                        reserve components; and
                            ``(ii) during''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``current or'' before 
        ``former'' each place the term appears.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lester *et al. vs.*Haynes *et al.*

Where an. affidavit *in forma pauperis*for the entry of an apjoeal to the superior court from the judgment of the county court, was made, not by the party dissatisfied, but by a person acting as his agent, the appeal was properly dismissed on motion, at least where no warrant of attorney authorizing such person to enter the appeal appeared.

February 27, 1888.

Appeal. Practice in superior court. Before Judge Fort. Sumter superior court. April adjourned term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Guerry & Son, for plaintiffs in error.

E. F. Hinton, for defendants.

Blandford, Justice.

In this case, the plaintiffs in error brought their action against the defendants in error in the county court of Sumter county. Judgment was rendered against the plaintiffs in error. An appeal was entered, and a certain person made an affidavit, as agent for the plaintiffs in error, that he and they were advised and believed that they had good cause of appeal, and that owing to their poverty, his poverty and the poverty of the estate, they were not able to pay the costs and give the security required by law. When the case was reached in the superior court, the court, on motion of the defendants in error, dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient. This ruling is excepted to, and is the sole ground of exception.

The act of 1842, (Cobb’s Digest, p. 501,) codified in section 8263 of the code, provides that the party dissatisfied with the judgment may enter an appeal, if such party will' make the affidavit required. It does not appear that the person who made this affidavit for the plaintiffs in error *121was authorized by any warrant of attorney to enter an appeal in their behalf. Eor myself, I think the plaintiffs in error themselves had to make the affidavit, under the act of 1842 and section 3263 of the code above referred to; but in this case, we are" all clear and without doubt that, inasmuch as there was no warrant of attorney authorizing the person who made this affidavit to enter an appeal, the court below committed no error in dismissing it.

Judgment affirmed.
Part 2 DRAFT

22

USSGL Account Number Begin/End Zero

184900 B189000 B189900 B192100 B192300 B192500 B198000 B198100 B199000 B199500 B199900 B

Edit Rule Number:

Fiscal Year 2019 R

Se

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

SUPPLEMENT

Left Side Attribute Combination Right Side Attribute Combination

Beginning Proprietary Account Balance The sum of the beginning balances for the proprietary USSGL accounts must equal zero for each reporteSZ: USSGL / ZeroEqual (=)01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12

Rule Name:

Description:

Type:

Operand:

Fatal Period:

Proposed Analytical Period:

Bulletin No. 2018-05 DRAFT VII EDR - 1 
Part 2 DRAFT

23

USSGL Account Number Begin/End Zero

189000 E189900 E192100 E192300 E192500 E198000 E198100 E199000 E199500 E199900 E201000 E209010 E298000 E298500 E299000 E299100 E299500 E310000 E310100 E570800 E570900 E571000 E571200 E571300 E572000 E573000 E574000 E574500 E575000 E575500 E575600 E

Edit Rule Number:

Fiscal Year 2019 R

Se

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

SUPPLEMENT

Left Side Attribute Combination Right Side Attribute Combination

Ending Proprietary Account Balance The sum of the pre-closing ending balances for the proprietary USSGL accounts must equal zero for eacreported TAS. SZ: USSGL / ZeroEqual (=)01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12

Rule Name:

Description:

Type:

Operand:

Fatal Period:

Proposed Analytical Period:

Bulletin No. 2018-05 DRAFT VII EDR - 2
Note: If you are the correct contact for the account establishment process, please confirm the receipt of this data call no later 

than 48 hours after receipt of this email or forward this email request to the appropriate person and copy the sender of this 

email. Thank you and feel free to contact budget.reporting.branch@fiscal.treasury.gov with any questions. 

1. Treasury is requiring that entities verify the legal authority for the next fiscal year for each Treasury account symbol listed 

with Federal Program Entities (FPE) who will be directly impacted by the account establishment decision(s). Any questions 

about the entity’s legal authority should be submitted to the entity’s Office of General Counsel. After verifying the legal 

authority, please complete steps 2-5 listed below. 

2. Please review and confirm the need for each account listed on the attached spreadsheet by indicating a “Yes” or “No” 

from the drop down in the column “A” titled “Establish TAS Yes/No”. 

3. If columns “L” and “M” are both marked with an X and you wish to establish the account, please provide justification in 

column “N” indicating why the account is needed even though it has not had activity for the last two fiscal years. 

4. Please don’t add accounts other than provided in the list. if you would like to request a new account, request by filling up 

Treasury account action request form (Form 000109) as usual. 

5. Shared service provider can fill out the spreadsheet, but the agency must approve their accounts. 

6. Please return the completed spreadsheet via email no later than close of business (COB), Friday, September 01, 2023 to 

budget.reporting.branch@fiscal.treasury.gov. If your response is not received by the established due date, Treasury will 

not automatically establish account symbols in CARS for entity use on October 1, 2023 (FY 2024). 

Please note if you had any of the accounts were established with an Inter-Agency Agreement, we may reach out for further 

clarification and documentation. Treasury requests your collaboration with a response by COB Friday September 01, 2023. For 

background information regarding the account establishment process, please see the attached file.
Case 2:05-cv-24246-RB Document 1 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-24246-RB Document 1 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-24246-RB Document 1 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-24246-RB Document 1 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-24246-RB Document 1 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 5
Case *No.*13,723.

#### TABOR et al. v. DEXLER et al. The “NEW DISCOVERY” LODE v. The “LITTLE CHIEF” LODE.

[9 Morr. Min. Rep. 614;

Carp. Min. Code, 71.]

Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

1878.

Mimes and Mining — Lode Claims — Ore “in Place. ”

[Where the mass overlying the. ore is mere drift, or a loose deposit, the ore is hot “in place,!’ within the meaning of Rev. St. § 2320, so as to give the owners of a claim the right to follow the dip within the lines of an adjoining claim.]

HALLETT, District Judge.

This is a bill for an injunction by parties owning the New Discovery lode, in California mining district, against the owners of an adjoining claim called the “Little Chief.” It is not alleged that the defendants have entered upon or into the New Discovery ground, or that they have in-any way interfered with plaintiffs’ possession within the limits of the New Discovery location. The charge is that plaintiffs’ lode descends into the Little Chief’s ground on its dip, and that defendants are there mining and exhausting the ore. In other words, plaintiffs contend that the top of the lode is in their ground, and that they have the right to follow upon its downward course and through adjoining • territory. To maintain this position, it is necessary to show that the lode is in place, within the meaning of section 2320, Rev. St. U. S. And this depends upon the position of the ore or vein matter in the earth, as whether the inclosing mass is fixed and immovable, more than upon the character of the ore itself. Whether the ore is loose and friable, or very-hard, if the inclosing walls are country rock, it may be located as a vein or lode. But if the ore is on top of the ground, or' has no other covering than the superficial deposit, which is called alluvium, diluvium, drift, or debris, it is not a lode or vein within the meaning of the act, which may be followed beyond the lines of the location. In this bill it is alleged that the overlying material is boulders and gravel, which can not be in place as required by the act. Not much is known to the court of the deposits on Fryer Hill, but it would seem from the allegations in this bill that they difEer materially from the Iron mine, which has a hanging wall as well as a foot wall. For the decision of this motion it is enough to say, that where the mass overlying the ore is a mere drift, or a loose deposit, the ore is not “in place,” within the meaning of the act. Upon principles recently explained, a location on such a deposit of ore may be sufficient to hold all that lies within the lines; but it can not give a right to ore in other territory, although the ore body may extend beyond the lines. The motion will be denied.
Case No. 13,717.

#### The SYRACUSE.

[6 Blatchf. 2.] 1

Circuit Court. S. D. New York.

Nov. 27, 1867.2

Towage — Contkact — Negligence — New Yoke Hakbok.

1. A contract by a steamer to tow a canal boat, at the risk of the canal boat, does not exempt the steamboat from liability for damages caused to the canal boat by the negligence of those in charge of the steamboat.

[Cited in The M. J. Cummings. 18 Fed. 183; The Packer, 28 Fed. 158; The Jonty Jenks, 04 Fed. 1023.]

2. Where a steamboat, with thirty-five boats in tow, is endeavoring to nass around the Battery, at New York, from the North river into the Bast river, she should, if the harbor is crowded with vessels at anchor, pass around Governor’s Island, and come up into the Bast river through Buttermilk channel.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

This was a libel, in rem, filed in the district court, against the steamboat Syracuse, by the owner of a canal boat that was being towed by her from Albany to New York, to ”ecover for the damages sustained by the canal boat, by her coming in contact. while so being towed, with a brig which was at anchor near the Battery, at New York. The district court decreed for the libellant [Case No. S.OiiS], and the claimant appealed to this court.

James C. Carter, for libellant.

Robert D. Benedict, for claimant.

2

 [Affirming Case No. 8.068. Decree of circuit court affirmed by supreme court in 12 Walk (79 U. S.) 167.]

NELSON. Circuit Justice.

One ground of defence set up is. that, by the contract of towage, it was agreed that the canal boat was to be towed by the steamer at her own risk. The answei to this is, that this contract does not exempt the steamboat from liability for damages caused to the canal boat by the negligence of those in charge of the steamboat.

On the question of negligence, the court oelow decided against the steamboat, in ac*594cordance, X think, with the weight of the evidence. The steamboat was making the circuit to get into the East river, the tide being ebb. The weight of the proof is, that chere was room sufficient, with the exercise of proper caution and care, to make the turn with safety, and avoid vessels at anchor. Besides, even conceding the crowded condition of the harbor, the steamboat should have followed the precaution of one which, with as large a tow. thirty-five boats, had gone down just ahead of her, and. to avoid danger, had passed around Governor’s Island, and come up into the East river through Buttermilk channel. Decree affirmed.

[On appeal to the supreme court, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. 12 Wall. (79 U. S.) 167.]
# sec4_attribtable_2022

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2022-XX	&"Arial,Bold"&9DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"&10April 2022 IRC Meeting Handout
Before the Second Division,

May 11, 1959

No. 63029.

#### Technomat *v.*United States,

protest 248742-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of harness hardware for use with harness for dogs the same in all material respects as that involved in *International Expediters, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C.D. 1868), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51356.

#### Protests 87683-K, etc., of Robert E. Landweer et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the lifeboats in question are the same in all material respects as the vessel involved in *Tregoning Boat Co.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 196, C. D. 971). In accordance therewith it was held that the lifeboats are not subject to duty on the ground that they are “vessels” within the definition contained in 1 U. S. C. § 3.