alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20737 

 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

JOSEPH ESPINOSA, II, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On May 26, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on that same 

day, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(ECF No. 19) is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement (ECF No. 18) is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: June 17, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

1:14-cr-20737-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 06/17/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 77
PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on June 17, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager 

1:14-cr-20737-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 06/17/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 78
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Population Health and 
Clinical Care Connections Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 15th meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Population Health and Clinical Care Connections 
Workgroup [formerly Biosurveillance Workgroup] in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

DATES: May 16, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern].

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building, (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/population/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion 
on how to facilitate the flow of reliable health information among 
population health and clinical care systems necessary to protect and 
improve the public's health.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/population/pop_instruct.htm.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-2006 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
# C_2011282EN.01005201.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/52

---

Action brought on 15 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-68/11)

2011/C 282/98

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Commission terminating the applicant's contract of employment of indefinite duration.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission (hereinafter, the AACC) of 30 September 2010, terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission (hereinafter, the AACC) of 30 September 2010, terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration;

| — | together with, and so far as necessary: annul the decision of the AACC of 14 April 2011, rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 December 2010 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

together with, and so far as necessary: annul the decision of the AACC of 14 April 2011, rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 December 2010 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL HARRIS and KARLA

HUDSON,

Plaintiffs, Case Number 14-13630

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT

AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties [dkt. #69],

It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 21, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 21, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 70 filed 12/21/15 PageID.1263 Page 1 of 1
#### § 116.330 Sailing vessels.

The design, materials, and construction of masts, posts, yards, booms, bowsprits, and standing rigging on a sailing vessel must be suitable for the intended service. The hull structure must be adequately reinforced to ensure sufficient strength and resistance to plate buckling. The cognizant OCMI may require the owner to submit detailed calculations on the strength of the mast, post, yards, booms, bowsprits, and standing rigging.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 900, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20556, May 7, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.040-7 Procedure for approval. ( a ) Rocket type line-throwing appliances are approved by the Coast Guard under the procedures in subpart 159.005 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. HAROLD BROWNE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Decided June 3, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchaed, Kaliscii and Lloyd.

For the plaintiff in error, *Theodore Strong.*

For the defendant in error, *John E. Toolan.*

Pee Cueiam.

A petition for a re-hearing was filed in the above stated cause, upon the theory that in the opinion filed therein, the *526court stated that twenty-five of the reasons presented by the counsel for plaintiff in error for a reversal could not be considered, because there was nothing in the printed case which indicated that the cause had been brought up for review under the one hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Criminal Procedure act. See *State*v. *Browne,*7 *N. J. Mis. R.*1.

Upon a re-examination of the record, we find there was such a certification which entitled the plaintiff in error to have the reasons considered under the one hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Criminal Procedure act, as well as on the assignments of errors. ,

The failure to consider the reasons arose from the fact that the printed case contained no special reference to the certificate in the index, and moreover, upon looking through the record, such certificate is not in the place where it is usual for it to be in the orderly making .up of the record.

We have since examined the reasons advanced, by counsel of plaintiff in error, for reversal of the judgment, and do not find them to be. of sufficient legal substance, so as to lead to any different result from that arrived at by the court, upon its original determination of the case.

The application for a re-hearing is denied.
§ 119.200 General. ( a ) Propulsion machinery must be suitable in type and design for propulsion requirements of the hull in which it is installed and capable of operating at constant marine load under such requirements without exceeding its designed limitations.
( b ) All engines must have at least two means for stopping the engine(s) under any operating conditions. The fuel oil shutoff required at the engine by § 119.455(b)(3) of this part will satisfy one means of stopping the engine.
# C_2011347EN.01001802.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/18

---

Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-498/11 P)

2011/C 347/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, A. Dawes, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event,

| — | award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court committed several errors in law when it rejected its claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision:

| a) | it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding; |
| --- | --- |

a)

it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding;

| b) | it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding; |
| --- | --- |

b)

it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding;

| c) | it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and |
| --- | --- |

c)

it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and

| d) | it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements. |
| --- | --- |

d)

it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements.

---
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Charles J. Taunt, Trustee, Case No.: 2:14-cv-14488 

 Consolidated with 2:13-cv-50297 

 Judge Paul D. Borman 

 Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

v. 

Bernard Glieberman, Sandra Glieberman, 

Lonie Glieberman, Lindsey Bobay-Glieberman, 

Jeffrey Katzen, Tracey Katzen, 

Black Bear, Inc., Lontray Enterprises, LLC, 

Digim, Inc. F/K/A Digital Image, Inc., 

and Digital Image, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________________/ 

STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

Plaintiff Chapter 7 Trustee, Charles J. Taunt, along with Defendants, Lonie 

Glieberman, and Lindsey Bobay-Glieberman, Black Bear, Inc., Bernard Glieberman, 

Sandra Glieberman, Lontray Enterprises, LLC, Digital Image, LLC, Jeffrey Katzen 

and Tracey Katzen, through their respective undersigned counsel, having stipulated 

to the entry of this Order Dismissing Case No. 14-14488 (consolidated with Case 

No. 13-50297) with prejudice and without costs pursuant to the terms of their 

settlement, the Court finding just cause to enter the requested relief, and the Court 

being otherwise duly advised in the premises; now therefore: 

Case 2:14-cv-14488-PDB-RSW ECF No. 75, PageID.1118 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 3
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice and 

without costs assessed to any party. 

 s/Paul D. Borman 

 Paul D. Borman 

Dated: December 11, 2018 United States District Judge 

STIPULATED TO BY: 

THE TAUNT LAW FIRM 

By:/s/Erika D. Hart 

Erika D. Hart (P67457) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

700 E. Maple Road, Second Floor 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

248-644-7800 

ehart@tauntlaw.com

SULLIVAN, WARD, ASHER & 

PATTON, P.C. 

By: /s/ Sheri B. Cataldo 

Sheri B. Cataldo (P39276) 

Attorney for Defendants 

Lonie Glieberman, Lindsey BobayGlieberman, and Black Bear, Inc. 

25800 Northwestern Highway 

Suite 1000 

Southfield, MI 48075-1000 

scataldo@swappc.com 

(248) 746-0700 

JACOB & WEINGARTEN, PC 

By: /s/ Debra Beth Pevos

Debra Beth Pevos (P36196) 

Attorneys for Bernard Glieberman 

and Sandra Glieberman 

25800 Northwestern Hwy, Ste 500 

Southfield, Michigan 48075 

 (248) 649-1900 

debra@jacobweingarten.com 

JAFFE RAITT HEUER & WEISS PC 

By:/s/ R. Christopher Cataldo 

R. Christopher Cataldo (P39353) 

Attorney for Lontray Enterprises, LLC 

and Digital Image, LLC 

27777 Franklin Road, Ste. 2500 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 351-3000 

ccataldo@jaffelaw.com 

Case 2:14-cv-14488-PDB-RSW ECF No. 75, PageID.1119 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 3
3

MADDIN HAUSER ROTH & 

HELLER, PC 

By: /s/ David E. Hart

David E. Hart (P45084) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Tracey Katzen and Jeffrey Katzen 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 354-4030 

dhart@maddinhauser.com 

Case 2:14-cv-14488-PDB-RSW ECF No. 75, PageID.1120 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 3
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation, FAA.

# ACTION:

Notice of submission deadline. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA announces May 3, 2007, as the deadline for submitting requests for the allocation of international Arrival Authorizations at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD). The FAA deadline coincides with the submission deadline established by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for the Winter 2007 Schedule Coordination Conference. The conference covers the period of October 28, 2007 through March 29, 2008. The FAA limits scheduled arrivals at ORD from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, and 12 p.m. to 9 p.m., on Sunday, based on runway capacity.

# DATES:

Requests for international Arrival Authorizations must be submitted no later than May 3, 2007.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7277; ARINC: DCAYAXD; or by e-mail to:                         *7-AWA-slotadmin@faa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Komal Jain, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-3073. 

Issued in Washington, DC on April 10, 2007. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

[FR Doc. 07-1874 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 108.469 Quantity of foam producing materials. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each foam extinguishing system with outlets— ( 1 ) In a tank must have enough foam producing material to discharge foam for at least 5 minutes at each outlet; and
( 2 ) In a space must have enough foam producing material to discharge foam for at least 3 minutes at each outlet.
( b ) If a foam system has outlets in more than one tank or space, the system need have only enough foam producing material to cover the largest space that the system covers or, if the liquid surface of a tank covered by the system is larger, the tank with the largest liquid surface.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CURWOOD-LEWIS PRICE, 

 Plaintiff, Case Number 14-14481 

v. Honorable David M. Lawson 

ANDY DILLON, JOHN E. NIXON, CATHY 

M. GARRETT, and RUTH JOHNSON, 

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, TO 

COMPEL APPEARANCE OF WITNESS, FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND TO FILE 

EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL 

 On February 7, 2019, the plaintiff filed three motions for various relief and a motion to file 

exhibits under seal. The plaintiff requests that the Court enter a protective order to preserve the 

confidentiality of certain sensitive information and compel the attendance of two witnesses at the 

in camera review of certain “withheld documents” and “sealed exhibits” that he separately seeks. 

The Court entered an opinion and order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g) on January 30, 2015. Because this case is closed, there is no information to protect and 

no reason to compel the appearances of any witnesses. The Court similarly is not persuaded that 

the plaintiff is entitled to in camera review based on the grounds presented. The plaintiff also has 

not identified a compelling reason to file his exhibits under seal. See Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue 

Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (cautioning that “[o]nly the most 

compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”) (citation omitted). The 

plaintiff’s motions therefore will be denied. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motions for protective order (ECF No. 

24), to compel appearance of witness (ECF No. 25), for in camera review (ECF No. 26), and to 
- 2 - 

file exhibits under seal (ECF No. 27) are DENIED. If the plaintiff chooses to file the exhibits, he 

must appropriately redact personally identifiable information in accordance with the eGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 5.2. 

 s/David M. Lawson 

 DAVID M. LAWSON 

 United States District Judge 

Date: February 15, 2019 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was 

served upon each attorney or party of record herein by 

electronic means or first class U.S. mail on February 15, 2019.

 s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

 SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI
# C_2012138EN.01004006.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 October 2011 — Torijano Montero v Council

(Case F-30/11) (1)

(2012/C 138/104)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011, p. 21.

---