alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS ABOARD 

COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSELS

Written By CDR Evan Hudspeth

Occasionally in response to a preliminary assessment letter (PAL) regarding an 

alleged violation of the citizenship requirements aboard commercial fishing 

vessels (46 U.S.C. § 8103(i)), the Hearing Officer has been asked to grant a 

waiver or has been sent an official request for a waiver. 

This request stems from 46 U.S.C. § 8103(b)(3), which states: “The Secretary 

may waive a citizenship requirement under this section, other than a 

requirement that applies to the master of a documented vessel, with respect 

to—... (C) any other vessel if the Secretary determines, after an investigation, 

that qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available.”

This authority has been delegated to the Commandant, and, with respect to 

commercial fishing vessels, it was further delegated to the Director of 

Prevention Policy, Office of Vessel Activities, Fishing Vessels Division (CG5433). Hearing Officers have no authority to grant a waiver. 

The current procedure is to submit official waiver requests directly to 

Commandant CG-5433 (formerly “G-MOC-3”), according 

to a Commandant policy letter dated June 28, 2001. Please keep in mind that 

although a copy of an official waiver request to 

CG-5433 may indicate the charged party’s efforts to comply with applicable 

law, more helpful to the Hearing Officer would be to 

include evidence of the date the waiver request was sent, and whether or not the 

waiver request was approved by CG-5433. 

When CG-5433 grants/approves a waiver request, it sends a letter to the party 

saying so, a copy of which is placed in MISLE. 

During vessel inspections, boarding officers can be on the lookout for these 

waiver requests. If there is evidence that the waiver 

was approved for the vessel and the individuals in question, then it is likely that 

a violation did not occur.
The Coast Guard has initiated the rulemaking process to incorporate its waiver 

request policy into federal regulations. The 

proposed rule is at 76 Federal Register 51317 and comments must be submitted 

to the Coast Guard by November 16, 2011.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Elaine D. Kaplan

Judge Elaine D. Kaplan was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims on November 1, 2013. On March 2, 2021, President Biden designated her as Chief Judge. Judge Kaplan joined the court after serving as the Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Prior to being designated Acting Director in April 2013, she had served as OPM's General Counsel, a position to which she was appointed in 2009. Judge Kaplan began her legal career in the Solicitor's Office of the U.S. Department of Labor, first in the Employee Benefits Division and then in the Division of Special Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation. Between 1984 and 1998, she litigated and supervised the litigation of cases at all levels of the federal court system as an attorney at the National Treasury Employees Union, an organization to which she returned in 2004 as Senior Deputy General Counsel. In 1998, Judge Kaplan was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to serve a five-year term as the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency whose mission is to protect the merit-based civil service. From 2003 to 2004, Judge Kaplan was "of counsel" to Bernabei and Katz, a nationally recognized plaintiff's side employment law and civil rights firm. A native of Brooklyn, New York, Judge Kaplan earned a J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University in 1979, and a bachelor's degree in history from the State University of New York in Binghamton in 1976.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
# C_2021459EN.01000901.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/9

---

CLEAN SKY 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/09)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Consolidated-AAR-2020_en.pdf

---
#### UNITED STATES v. Gerald F. MARCH, [ XXX XX XXXX ], Private First Class (E-2) U. S. Marine Corps.

NCM 77 0056.

U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

Sentence Adjudged 26 July 1976.

Decided 15 Feb. 1977.

CDR A. W. Eoff, II, JAGC, USN, Appellate Defense Counsel.

LT COL P. N. Kress, USMC, Appellate Government Counsel.

Before MURRAY, Senior Judge, and MALLERY and GREGORY, JJ.

MURRAY, Senior Judge:

We find that the sentence in this case which includes an unsuspended punitive discharge is inappropriately severe. Exercising the authority which was recognized by another panel of this Court in the case of *1151
      *United States v. Silvernail,*1 M.J. 945 (N.C.M.R.1976) *cert. dismissed*No. 32,530 (U.S.C.M.A. 26 August 1976), we will suspend the punitive discharge in this instance,

Accordingly, the findings and only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement at hard labor for three months, forfeiture of $240.00 pay per month for three months, reduction to pay grade E-l, and a bad conduct discharge suspended for the actual period of confinement and six months thereafter are affirmed.

Judge MALLERY concurs.

GREGORY, Judge

(dissenting):

The favorable recommendations concerning this appellant, particularly by his battalion commander, provide strong arguments for suspension of the adjudged bad conduct discharge. I do not believe, however, that this Court has the power to suspend a sentence.

As noted by the majority, another panel of this Court has held that the Courts of Military Review possess the inherent power to suspend sentences. *United States v. Silvernail,*1 M.J. 945 (N.C.M.R.1976), *cert. dismissed*No. 32,530 (U.S.C.M.A. 26 Aug. 1976). I recognize also that the majority opinion in *United States v. Keller,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 545, 50 C.M.R. 716, 1 M.J. 159 (1975), implied that such inherent power may be present. In my opinion, however, the law presently holds that appellate bodies, such as the Courts of Military Review, do not have the power to suspend sentences. *See United States v. Cox,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 69, 46 C.M.R. 69 (1972); *United States v. Glaze,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 230, 46 C.M.R. 230 (1973); *United States v. Estill,*9 U.S.C.M.A. 458, 26 C.M.R. 238 (1958); *United States v. Simmons,*2 U.S.C.M.A. 105, 6 C.M.R. 105 (1952). *See also United States v. Keller, supra,*dissenting opinion of Judge Cook.

This appellant stands convicted, *inter alia,*of a serious offense of assault with a dangerous weapon. I cannot state that a sentence which includes a bad conduct discharge is inappropriate. In the absence of the power to suspend a sentence, I would affirm the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved on review below.
# C_2021177EN.01007001.xml

| 7.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/70

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 122 of 9 April 2021
  )

(2021/C 177/04)

On page 39, State aid number SA.62035 (2021/NN):

for:

| ‘Objective | Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’ |
| --- | --- |

‘Objective

Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’

read:

| ‘Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy’ |
| --- | --- |

‘Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy’

---
# C_2022361EN.01003601.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/36

---

P9_TA(2022)0090

Macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2022 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova (COM(2022)0004 — C9-0007/2022 — 2021/0438(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2022/C 361/10)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0004), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0004),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 212(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0007/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 212(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0007/2022),

| — | having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 21 March 2022 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 21 March 2022 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0043/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0043/2022),

| 1. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

---

P9_TC1-COD(2021)0438

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 24 March 2022 with a view to the adoption of Decision (EU) 2022/... of the European Parliament and of the Council providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision (EU) 2022/563.)

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2484 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that certain aliens 

who are pregnant are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be 

admitted to the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2015 

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. JONES, 

Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. ZINKE, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CARTER

of Georgia, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. GOSAR, and Mr. OLSON) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

that certain aliens who are pregnant are ineligible to 

receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Birth Tourism 

5 Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2484 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN 

2 ALIENS WHO ARE PREGNANT. 

3 Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended by inserting at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(11) PREGNANCY.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an alien 

8 seeking admission to the United States as a 

9 nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(B), a 

10 consular officer or the Secretary of State may 

11 require that the alien provide a certification 

12 from a healthcare provider that the alien is not 

13 pregnant, or, if the alien is pregnant, as to the 

14 status of the pregnancy. 

15 ‘‘(B) INADMISSIBILITY.—An alien seeking 

16 admission to the United States as a non17 immigrant under section 101(a)(15)(B) who a 

18 consular officer or the Secretary of State deter19 mines under subparagraph (A) is pregnant, and 

20 if admitted to the United States, is likely to 

21 give birth in the United States, is inadmis22 sible.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Gingold *v.*Coplon.

*Assumpsit.*

(Decided May 21, 1914.

65 South. 328.)

1. *Appeal and Error; Review; Finding of Court or Jury.*— Unless plainly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence, the judgment of the trial court sitting without a jury based on evidence ore tenus will not be disturbed on appeal.

2. *Estoppel; Pleading; Necessity.*— Estoppel must be pleaded in order to be available as a defense.

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

Assumpsit by D. Coplon against Sam Z. Gingold. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals-.

Affirmed.

Transferred from Court of Appeals under § 6, Acts 1911, p. 451.

Leader & Ewing, for appellant.

Counsel discuss the errors assigned with the insistence that they should bring about a reversal, but they cite no: authority in support thereof.

Baugh & Emerson, for appellee.

Negotiable instruments are presumed to be based upon sufficient and valid consideration, and import prima facie a consid*eration.*— Martin *v.*Foster, 83 Ala. 13; 8 Cyc. 222-5-7-; § 4989, Code 1907. - The judgment was not clearly and *341palpably contrary to the weight of the *evidence.*— Cobb *v. Malone,*9 South. 738.

ANDERSON, C. J. —

This case was tried by the judge of the city court, without a jury, and the evidence was ore tenus, and, such being the case, the trial court had the advantage of this court of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and its judgment will not be disturbed by this court, unless plainly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the *evidence.*—Thompson *v. Collier,*170 Ala. 469, 54 South. 493, and cases there cited. We are not prepared to say that the finding of the trial court was so contrary to- the great weight of the evidence as to warrant this court in reversing its judgment.

The suggestion of an estoppel is made in .brief of counsel; but we find no plea in the record invoking such a defense.

The judgment of the city court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, Sayre, and de Graffenried, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 243 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish a health advisory and submit reports with respect to Microcystins 

in drinking water. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. RYAN

of Ohio, Ms. NORTON, Ms. FUDGE, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mrs. BEATTY, and Mr. JOYCE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to publish a health advisory and submit reports 

with respect to Microcystins in drinking water. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Secure 

5 Drinking Water Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROCYSTINS IN DRINKING WATER. 

7 (a) HEALTH ADVISORY.—Not later than 90 days 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 243 IH

1 of the Environmental Protection Agency (in this Act re2 ferred to as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall develop and pub3 lish a health advisory including recommendations on— 

4 (1)(A) the level of Microcystins in drinking 

5 water below which the water is expected to be safe 

6 for human consumption; and 

7 (B) feasible treatment techniques and other 

8 means for achieving such level; and 

9 (2) standardized procedures for testing for 

10 Microcystins in drinking water. 

11 (b) PERIODIC REPORTS.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Until the Administrator 

13 makes a determination of whether or not to regulate 

14 Microcystins in drinking water under section 

15 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 300g–1(b)), the Administrator shall submit reports 

17 as required by paragraph (2). 

18 (2) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later 

19 than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

20 Act, and every year thereafter, the Administrator 

21 shall submit to the Congress a report on the fol22 lowing: 

23 (A) The status of the Administrator’s ef24 forts to determine whether to regulate drinking 

25 water with respect to the level of Microcystins. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 243 IH

1 (B) The steps taken by the Administrator 

2 to promote testing of drinking water for 

3 Microcystins in areas that have been affected by 

4 harmful algal blooms. 

5 (C) An analysis of available treatment 

6 techniques and other means for addressing 

7 Microcystins in drinking water. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER97-2261-014]


Constellation Power Source, Inc.; Notice of Filing

April 11, 2000.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2000, Constellation Power Source, 
Inc. submitted for filing an updated market analysis as required by the 
Commission's condition granting it authorization to sell wholesale 
power at market-based rates.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before April 21, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9481 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Pasley, Appellant.

Submitted May 29, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hazen Solomon, Appellant.

Based on the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, we are in agreement with the hearing court’s determination that while the *Miranda*warnings issued to the defendant were legally deficient, his statements made subsequent to his arrest were spontaneous and thus admissible *(see, People v Maerling,*46 NY2d 289; *People v Kaye,*25 NY2d 139).

Moreover, the circumstantial evidence elicited at the trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319; *People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111, 1112), was sufficient to permit the jury to draw the inference that the defendant had knowledge that the credit card which he possessed was stolen. On this point, we also note that the jury charge as a whole properly conveyed the principles regarding the permissive presumption of knowledge.

We find that the jewelry store clerk was properly permitted to testify as to the value, as reflected on the price tag, of the two gold chains that the defendant attempted to "purchase” *841with the stolen card. A proper foundation was laid as to her knowledge of the subject *(see, People v Womble,*111 AD2d 283, citing *State v Hammond,*6 Wn App 459, 493 P2d 1249; *People v Gross*51 AD2d 191, 195). Moreover, such evidence was sufficient to prove the value of the items *(see, People v Irrizari,*5 NY2d 142, 146).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
tomeacobacci-amendedandr






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 1D150113-0050-4A65-AFA1-648FB2241E62 5/3/2021