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

Written By Author Unknown 

The Coast Guard Hearing Office is a unit that handles a lot of paper 

neatly packaged in hundreds of violation case files. It is also a unit 

that must accord fairness to both Coast Guard field personnel that 

work to enforce maritime laws and regulations, and to the members 

of the maritime public subject to civil penalty action. One critical 

and very important pillar to providing this fairness is timeliness. 

Often, that means establishing time standards for processing steps 

so that any given violation case file continues to move through the 

process efficiently and without unnecessary stagnation.

To this end, the Coast Guard Hearing Office requires that files 

returned to the program manager for correction be returned to the 

Coast Guard Hearing Office within 20 days. Requests made to a unit 

for rebuttal comments to a party’s response or appeal comments to a 

party’s appeal letter require a response to the Coast Guard Hearing 

Office within 30 days. “Within” means physically received by the 

Coast Guard Hearing Office no later than the number of days 

specified.

Additionally, units have 4 days to respond to a request to transfer 

control of an enforcement activity in MISLE to the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office. Units have 15 days to respond to a request for a new 

mailing address for a party because the address in MISLE resulted 

in a failed delivery. 

The time standards above may be shortened or lengthened by the 

Coast Guard Hearing Office for reasons not obvious to the reader but 

necessary for the appropriate handling of the violation case file. 

Extensions to any of the above time standards may be requested. 
A word about rebuttal and appeal comments. The Hearing Officer 

will cause a request for rebuttal or appeal comments to be sent 

directly to the Executive Officer of the unit that initiated the 

violation for civil penalty action. The unit’s response is required to be 

in Coast Guard memorandum format (vice email) and forwarded to 

the Coast Guard Hearing Office. In all but dismissed cases, a copy of 

the response is provided to the party so it is important that the 

response answer any points raised by the party or the Hearing 

Officer, and that it be professional in tone and content. 

Units and processing officials are reminded that the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office may determine that a violation case file was not 

processed timely by a unit or processing official and the lack of 

timeliness has affected the ability to fairly adjudicate the case. While 

there are acceptable reasons for delaying the timely referral of a 

violation for civil penalty action, those reasons are few once the 

boarding, inspection or investigation is complete. Units and 

processing officials are encouraged to monitor enforcement actions 

and if wanting to refer violations for civil penalty action, that the 

violation case files are prepared and forwarded without delay.
# C_2021463EN.01000601.xml

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10466 – GOLDMAN SACHS / ENEOS / NIPPO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 463/06)

On 10 November 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10466. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10466. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Listen

# Advisory Committees News

Montana Advisory Committee Announces Public Meetings on Voting Access for Native Americans
February 1, 2021

Massachusetts Advisory Committee Releases Report on Looming Water Affordability Crisis
January 27, 2021

California Advisory Committee Releases Report on Immigration Enforcement and Children in K-12 Schools
January 26, 2021

Michigan Advisory Committee Announces Study: Voting Rights During the COVID-19 Pandemic in MI
January 25, 2021

Arizona Advisory Committee Announces Series of Meetings to Hear Testimony on COVID-19 and Native American Communities in AZ
January 12, 2021

-    First  
-    Previous  
-   ...  
-  8 
-  9 
-  10 

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives 

## Meetings

### Recent and Upcoming

U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee Community Forum
April 10, 2024

Arizona Advisory Committee Public Web Briefing on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pediatric Healthcare - Panel IV
March 26, 2024

VIEW ALL
#### In the Matter of Eugene C. Colello, Appellant, v Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Erie County Board of Elections, et al., Respondents, and Robert E. Whelan, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J. —Election Law.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevan M. Casey, Chief
Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

(2)  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Kevan M. Casey
---------------------------------
Kevan M. Casey,
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
August 26, 2003


     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  eLinear,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained by eLinear, Inc. and
furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              96
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    96
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      96
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          462,649
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (462,553)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  616,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                148,161
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (616,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                832,553
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   148,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
Order entered January 3, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01523-CV

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF CLARENCE LAMAR NORSWORTHY, 

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-16-1331-2

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator Jeanette Norsworthy’s 

December 29, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator Jeanette Norsworthy to bear the costs, if any, of this original 

proceeding

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         545,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  950,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    213,119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,989,949
<PP&E>                                       4,907,007
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,711,364)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,550,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,541,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    379,074
<COMMON>                                        33,344
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,966,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,550,123
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,924,948
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,099,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            101,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,723
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
# C_2021018EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9956 — DTC/CEPCON/Hornsea One OFTO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 18/01)

On 11 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M9956. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M9956. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Leon, 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.
SVNO - SEVENMILE CREEK NR FORT KLAMATH ORLatitude: 42.433Longitude: -122.052Elevation: 4308

SVNO - Sevenmile Creek Nr Fort Klamath OR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Annie Springs Site Page...



Annie Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crazyman Flat Site Page...



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Swan Lake Mtn Site Page...



Swan Lake Mtn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sun Pass Site Page...



Sun Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Billie Creek Divide Site Page...



Billie Creek Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chemult Alternate Site Page...



Chemult Alternate

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cold Springs Camp Site Page...



Cold Springs Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fourmile Lake Site Page...



Fourmile Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quartz Mountain Site Page...



Quartz Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sevenmile Marsh Site Page...



Sevenmile Marsh

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taylor Butte Site Page...



Taylor Butte
BAC asserts that, pursuant to this court's holding in Leyva v. 

National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275, 1277- 

79 (2011), only those documents required under NRS 107.086(4) are held 

to a "strict compliance" standard, and therefore strict compliance with the 

FMR 11(3) requirements that do not appear in NRS 107.086(4) are not 

mandatory. The Sheffields, however, do not rely on FMR 11(3), but 

instead point to NRS 645C.730(1) in support of their argument. NRS 

645C.730(1) states, in pertinent part, that 

[i]t is unlawful for an employee, director, officer or 

agent of an appraisal management company to 

influence or attempt to influence the development, 

reporting or review of an appraisal 

through. . . [a]y. . . act or practice that impairs 

or attempts to impair an appraiser's 

independence, objectivity or impartiality. 

Pursuant to NRS 645C.600, the provisions of NRS 645C.730 

"do not apply to . . . [a] person, limited-liability company, partnership, 

association or corporation other than an appraisal management company 

which, in the normal course of its business, employs persons for the 

performance of real estate appraisal services." (Emphases added.) Here, 

BAC's use of the services of LandSafe does not place BAC within NRS 

645C.034(1)'s definition of an appraisal management company. Rather, 

BAC functioned more as a "corporation other than an appraisal 

management company" when it employed LandSafe to perform the real 

estate appraisal for purposes of mediation and compliance with the FMRs. 

See NRS 645C.600. 

Under the FMRs, BAC was only required, as the beneficiary, 

to "produce an appraisal" of the property at issue in the foreclosure for the 

purpose of mediation negotiation. See FMR 11(6). Thus, BAC was under 

no specific duty to provide an appraisal that benefited the Sheffields. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
J. 

Even if we were to determine that BAC qualified as an "appraisal 

management company" pursuant to NRS 645C.034(1), BAC did not 

commit an act that attempted "to impair an appraiser's independence, 

objectivity or impartiality." NRS 645C.730(k). The FMRs merely required 

BAC to produce an appraisal for purposes of mediation, which it did. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in ordering the issuance of a foreclosure 

certificate. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

.a.AA 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge 

Mark L. Mausert 

Pite Duncan, LLP 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
fTNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

TNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

Addrcss ofAdministrative Lar Judge Docketing Ccnter:

ALJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 21202-4022

Email: alidocketcenter(Ausca.mil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 612-7524 [6IA-SKCG]

Fax: (410) 962-1746

Toll Free Fax: (877\ 243-3453 [CGE-FILEI

C]OMPI-AINNN'f :

I.INITT,D STATES CoAST GTIAITD

RESPONDENT: Billv Covert DOCKET NUMBER 202]-() I 6.I

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NI]MBER

76+3t,+0

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on April 25,2023,

seeking Revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On May 2, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as:

The Respondent is deceased. The Coast Guard provided an obituary clip.

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date.

Done and Dated May 4.2023 ar

Baltimore, MD

L.4//,,4214.71.rr1-

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge
# C_2021032EN.01000101.xml

| 29.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9837 — BP/Sinopec Fuel Oil Sales/BP Sinopec Marine Fuels)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 32/01)

On 22 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M9837. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M9837. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Steakhouse Partners, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. Stone Douglass President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a amended; and

(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 5, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    A. STONE DOUGLASS                                                                                           
|                     |  |  |  | A. Stone Douglass                                                                                                  
|                     |  |  |  | President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Serving as principal executive
officer)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainrnt,

vs.

JOHNNIE QUARLES,

Respondent,

Docket Number 2023-0068

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7625636

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Issued: June 27 2023

Bv: Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski Chief Administrative Law Judse

Appearances:

SHAWN MERRICK

USCG Sector Jacksonville

For the Coast Guard

JOHNNIE QUARLES, Pra se

For the Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On June 21, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of Settlement

Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order, to be approved as a settlement ofthe case under 33

c.F.R. $ 20.s02.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated June 27 ,2023

New York. NY

Zth.// s,,-4*A

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD