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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 07-04]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-04 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: November 14, 2006.

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 67338)          ( print page 67339)          ( print page 67340)    

BILLING CODE 5006-06-M

[FR Doc. 06-9298 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
# National Donate Life Month, 2007

Donating organs, marrow, and tissue is a kind and compassionate act that can protect and enhance the precious gift of life. During National Donate Life Month, we recognize the generosity of donors and raise awareness of the importance of donating. 

In recent years, there has been great progress in this important effort, and the rate of organ donation has steadily increased—helping save thousands of lives. Despite this success, more than 95,000 Americans currently await organ transplants, and hundreds more are added to the transplant list each month. My Administration strongly supports organ, marrow, and tissue donation, and we are working with public and private groups to help more citizens understand the impact of organ donation. 

Americans who wish to become organ and tissue donors can register with their State's donor registry, designate their intent on their driver's license, and sign and carry donor cards, which are available at organdonor.gov. I urge all citizens to consider becoming donors and encourage all donors to inform their loved ones of their decision so their wishes can be fulfilled. Every human life holds inherent dignity and matchless value, and National Donate Life Month is an opportunity to celebrate our country's organ and tissue donors. The decision to donate the gift of life demonstrates the compassionate spirit of our Nation. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 2007 as National Donate Life Month. I call upon health care professionals, volunteers, educators, government agencies, faith-based and community groups, and private organizations to help raise awareness of the urgent need for organ and tissue donors throughout our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 

[FR Doc. 07-1627

Billing code 3195-01-P
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN GREINER, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13979 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER COUNTY OF 

MACOMB, MICHIGAN, a/k/a 

MACOMB COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF #155) 

 By an Opinion and Order dated September 11, 2017 (ECF #117) and a second 

Opinion and Order dated November 13, 2017 (ECF #138), this Court granted summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff John Greiner on all of Greiner’s 

claims. Greiner, who is proceeding pro se because his two prior retained attorneys refused 

to continue representing him, filed eight motions for reconsiderations (ECF ## 118, 119, 

121, 122, 125, 126, 128, 129), and the Court entered orders denying them all (ECF ## 124, 

127, 131). The Court subsequently entered a final judgment against Greiner (ECF #139), 

and Greiner thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF #140.) 

 With his appeal still pending, Greiner has now returned to this Court and filed a 

motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (ECF #155.) Greiner argues that he is entitled to relief from judgment because 
2 

the Defendants and/or their lawyers committed fraud on the court. (See id.) Defendant 

Charter County of Macomb has filed a response in opposition to the motion. (ECF #156.) 

 Because Greiner filed a Notice of Appeal from the Court’s final judgment, this 

Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 60(b). See Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 

377, 383 (6th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Greiner’s motion is DENIED. 

 While this Court may not grant relief from judgment, it may “aid the appellate 

process” by indicating whether it would grant the requested the relief if the Sixth Circuit 

were to remand the case further proceedings. Id. (quoting First Nat. Bank of Salem, Ohio 

v. Hirsch, 535 F2d. 343, 345, n.1 (6th Cir. 1976)). To aid the appellate process, this Court 

sates that it would not grant Greiner’s motion for relief from judgment in the event of a 

remand. The motion is a rehash and/or repackaging of arguments that Greiner has 

previously offered and that the Court has previously rejected. The motion presents no basis 

on which to disturb the judgment that the Court entered against Greiner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 13, 2018 

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

and/or counsel of record on November 13, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
§ 112.43-7 Navigating bridge distribution panel. ( a ) Except as allowed in paragraph (b) of this section, the following emergency lights must be supplied from a distribution panel on the navigating bridge: ( 1 ) Navigation lights not supplied by the navigation light indicator panel.
( 2 ) Lights for survival craft launching operations under § 111.75-16, except as allowed in § 112.43-5.
( 3 ) Signaling lights.
( 4 ) Emergency lights: ( i ) On open decks;
( ii ) On the navigating bridge;
( iii ) In the chartroom;
( iv ) In the fire control room; and
( v ) For navigation equipment.
( b ) On a mobile offshore drilling unit, the distribution panel required in paragraph (a) of this section must be in the control room.
( c ) Each distribution panel required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must have a fused switch or circuit breaker for each branch circuit.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15267, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28287, June 4, 1996]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RODRICK JONES, #281804,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-12765

v. HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court has before it Plaintiff Rodrick Jones’s pro se civil rights complaint brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, an inmate at the Woodland Correctional Facility in

Whitmore Lake, Livingston County, Michigan, alleges that he is being forcefully gassed and/or

injected with medication. At the time he filed his complaint, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or

submit a proper application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(2). Consequently, the Court issued a deficiency order requiring Plaintiff to either pay the

filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application within 30 days – by August

20, 2014. The order provided that if Plaintiff did not do so, his case would be dismissed. Plaintiff

has failed to correct the filing fee/application deficiency within the allotted time. Accordingly, the

Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his complaint. This case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2014 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on September 11, 2014, the foregoing document was served on counsel of

record 

2:14-cv-12765-SFC-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 7
via electronic means and upon Rodrick Jones via First Class mail at the address below:

Rodrick Jones

281804

Woodland Center Correctional Facility

9036 E M-36

Whitmore Lake, MI 48189

S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager 

2

2:14-cv-12765-SFC-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 8
§ 11.530 Endorsements as engineers of uninspected fishing industry vessels. ( a ) This section applies to endorsements for chief and assistant engineers of all vessels, however propelled, which are documented to engage in the fishing industry, with the exception of— ( 1 ) Wooden ships of primitive build;
( 2 ) Unrigged vessels; and
( 3 ) Vessels of less than 200 GRT.
( b ) Endorsements as chief engineer and assistant engineer of uninspected fishing industry vessels are issued for ocean waters and with propulsion power limitations in accordance with the provisions of § 11.503 of this subpart.
( c ) For an endorsement as chief engineer, the applicant must have served 4 years in the engineroom of vessels. One year of this service must have been as an assistant engineer officer or equivalent position.
( d ) For an endorsement as assistant engineer, an applicant must have served 3 years in the engine room of vessels.
( e ) Two-thirds of the service required under this section must have been on motor vessels.
( f ) Applicants may request an orally assisted examination on the subjects listed in subpart I of this part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRANDON RESCH, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 4:14-cv-13432 

v. District Judge Terrence G. Berg 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

BAYDOUN, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

(DE 3) AND TO HOLD DEFENDANT’S DEMAND FOR COMPULSORY 

JOINDER OF CLAIMS IN ABEYANCE (DE 17) 

 Plaintiff Brandon Resch, a state inmate, filed his Complaint and Request to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis on September 3, 2014. (DE 1, 2.) At the time he filed 

his Complaint, Plaintiff was proceeding without the assistance of counsel. This 

matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s September 3, 2014 

Motion to Appoint Counsel (DE 3) and his November 25, 2014 Motion to Hold 

Defendant’s Demand for Compulsory Joinder of Claims in Abeyance.1

 (DE 17.) 

For the reasons that follow, both Motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

                                                            

1

 The demand to which Plaintiff refers appears on page four of Defendant 

Baydoun’s Answer. (DE 11.) 

4:14-cv-13432-TGB-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 156
2

 In his Motion to Appoint Counsel, Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford 

counsel, that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate and 

participate in a trial, and that he has made “repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer in 

this matter, to no avail.” (Mot. at ¶ 1-4, DE 3.) On February 16, 2015, Michael 

Dezsi, of the Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC, filed his appearance as 

counsel for Plaintiff. (DE 23.) Because Plaintiff has obtained counsel in this 

matter, his Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS 

MOOT. (DE 3.) 

 Similarly, in his Motion to Hold Defendants’ Demand for Compulsory 

Joinder of Claims in Abeyance, Plaintiff notes that he is “a true layman at law” and 

as such, requests that the Demand in Defendant’s Answer be held in abeyance to 

allow Plaintiff time to “understand the legalities of such a demand” and to make a 

proper response. (Mot. at ¶ 1, DE 17.) Because Plaintiff is now represented by 

counsel, his argument that he requires additional time to understand legal issues in 

this case is no longer at issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED AS 

MOOT. (DE 17.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 4, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4:14-cv-13432-TGB-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 157
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on March 4, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

(313) 234-5200 

4:14-cv-13432-TGB-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 158
#### § 2105.32 Will a submitter be notified of a FOIA lawsuit?

If you file a lawsuit seeking to compel the disclosure of confidential information, the Agency must promptly notify the submitter.
# 2023 Executive Calendars

**

----

   The Executive Calendar is published by the Executive Clerk’s office in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. The calendar is published each day the Senate is in session. These calendars list executive business items such as unanimous consent agreements, resolutions, treaties, and nominations. The calendar is identified by the date published and a volume number, which both appear on the cover of the calendar. A final calendar is published at the end of each session of Congress. For a detailed summary of the sections of the Executive Calendar, see, About the Executive Calendar.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, 

v.

MARY BERGHUIS,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 4:14-CV-12977

Honorable Linda V. Parker

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND DENYING AS MOOT

HIS MOTION TO HOLD PETITION IN ABEYANCE

On July 29, 2014, Petitioner Johnny Williams, a state inmate currently

incarcerated at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon,

Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. A week later, Petitioner filed a motion asking the Court to hold the

petition in abeyance (ECF No. 4); and on September 2, 2014, he filed a motion to

voluntarily dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 6.)

Petitioner now seeks dismissal of this action, indicating that he did not cause

the petition to be filed and did not consent to anyone filing it on his behalf. (ECF

No. 6 at Pg ID 21.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) permits a plaintiff to

dismiss an action without leave of the adverse party or the court at any time before

4:14-cv-12977-LVP-RSW Doc # 7 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 25
service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party. 

Respondent has not yet been served with the petition and, therefore, has not filed

an answer or motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner’s “Motion for Voluntary Dismissal,

Without Prejudice, of Habeas Corpus Petition” (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED and the

matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Petitioner’s “Motion to Hold and Stay

in Abeyance” (ECF No. 4) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

S/ Linda V. Parker 

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 30, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of

record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 30, 2014, by electronic and/or

U.S. First Class mail.

S/ Richard Loury 

Case Manager

2

4:14-cv-12977-LVP-RSW Doc # 7 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 26
2:14-cv-13626-AC-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 02/27/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 38
2:14-cv-13626-AC-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 02/27/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Lanard Issac,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 14-13712

Pat Engineering Enterprises Co., WLL, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff filed this breach-of-contract action on October 2, 2014, alleging subject matter

jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to investigate and police the boundaries of

their own jurisdiction.” Douglas v. E.F. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir. 1998). 

Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction are: 1) that the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and 2) that

complete diversity of citizenship exists between the disputing parties. 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff did not allege the amount in controversy. On October 9, 2014,

this Court issued an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause, in writing, on or before October 17, 2014,

why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #3). To date,

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Therefore, based on Plaintiff’s failure to convince the Court of its subject matter jurisdiction 

2:14-cv-13712-SFC-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 10/24/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
over this case, the Court shall DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: October 24, 2014

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

October 24, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13712-SFC-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 10/24/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
#### § 122.610 Watertight doors and watertight hatches.

Watertight doors and watertight hatches must be marked on both sides in clearly legible letters at least 25 millimeters (1 inch) high: “WATERTIGHT DOOR—KEEP CLOSED” or “WATERTIGHT HATCH—KEEP CLOSED”, unless such markings are deemed unnecessary by the cognizant OCMI.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 935, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51047, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### Kate L. S. Mapes and Peter Shand, Jr., *Appellants, v.*Agnes S. *West,*Respondent.

Order reversed, without costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J., and by Davis, P. J., dissenting.
1

The Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3495

___________

Dustin Sours, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue, *

Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2010

Filed: May 7, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dustin Sours appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of disability

insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). Sours alleged

disability since February 2003 from, among other things, clubfeet, herniated discs,

obesity, and depression. Following several hearings, and a remand by the Appeals

Council, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that certain of Sours’s impairments
-2-

were not severe; that the other impairments, while severe, did not meet the

requirements of any listing, alone or combined; that Sours’s subjective complaints

were not fully credible; that his residual functional capacity (RFC) for sedentary work

precluded his past relevant work; and that based on a vocational expert’s response to

the ALJ’s hypothetical, Sours could perform certain unskilled sedentary jobs existing

in substantial numbers in Missouri and nationally. The Appeals Council denied

review.

We agree with the district court that the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d

825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); see also Finch v. Astrue, 547

F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good

reasons for doing so, courts will normally defer to his judgment); Kirby v. Astrue, 500

F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007) (impairment is not severe if it amounts only to slight

abnormality that would not significantly limit claimant’s physical or mental ability to

do basic work activities; it is claimant’s burden to establish his impairment is severe);

Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005) (in determinating RFC, ALJ

must first evaluate claimant’s credibility; RFC must take into account all relevant

evidence, including medical records and observations of treating physicians and

others). We decline to consider the evidence and impairments Sours references for

the first time on appeal, but if he now meets the requirements for SSI (as his insured

status for DIB has expired), he should file a new application. See Fowler v. Shalala,

46 F.3d 876, 878-79 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
§ 108.429 Fire main system protection. ( a ) Each pipe and fire hydrant in a fire main system must be installed to the extent practicable in locations that are not exposed to damage by materials that are moved on or onto the deck.
( b ) Each part of the fire main system located on an exposed deck must either be protected against freezing or be fitted with cutout valves and drain valves to shut off and drain the entire exposed system in freezing weather.