alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012039EN.01001201.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 December 2011 — E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State

(Case C-640/11)

(2012/C 39/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

---
The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern * District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3791EM

_____________ Tammy Kwikkel-Elliott; * * Plaintiff, * * William Elliott, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Plaintiff-Appellant, * District of Missouri. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Aid Association for Lutherans, * * Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: March 13, 1998

Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and EISELE, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. William Elliott appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this retaliation-based employment discrimination action. Having reviewed the record and the materials submitted by the parties, we see no error by the district court. The-2-

district court has written a well-reasoned opinion in this fact-intensive case, and w e concludethat an extended discussion is unnecessary. We believe the district court is correct, and we affirm on the basis of the district court's memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 141.240 Requirements for training crews.

Training requirements are contained in part 140 of this subchapter.
<PAGE>
PICK Communications Corp.
Wayne Interchange Plaza II
155 Route 46 West, Third Floor
Wayne, NJ 07470
Phone:  201 912 PICK (7425)
Fax:    201 812-4181


                                 April 27, 1998




Mr. Luis Arias
Blackstone Calling Card, Inc.
Second Floor
7900 N. W. 36th Street
Miami, Florida 33166

Dear Mr. Arias:

Reference is made to the Distributor Agreement between PICK, Inc.
("PICK") and Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. ("Distributor") dated
February 11, 1998.

Pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the referenced Agreement, PICK and Distributor
hereby agree to make the following addition in the Agreement:

         14. The parties hereby agree that any dispute between them shall be
         resolved by binding arbitration conducted in Miami, Dade County,
         Florida utilizing the American Arbitration Association. The proceeding
         shall be governed by the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American
         Arbitration Association; provided, however, the parties stipulate and
         agree that they will fully cooperate and take such actions as are
         necessary to allow each party to conduct full discovery as provided for
         by the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court,
         including but not limited to Rules 26 through 37. Either party may
         commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Miami, Dade
         County, Florida for the purpose of obtaining and enforcing the rights
         to discovery as provided for in this Agreement.



<PAGE>


If the foregoing has your approval, please sign in the space provided below and
return one copy to my attention.

                                               Sincerely,

                                               PICK, INC.



                                               By: /s/  Diego Lieva  
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Diego Lieva, President
Accepted and Agreed:

Blackstone Calling Card, Inc.



By: /s/ Luis Arias   
   ------------------------------
   Luis Arias, President
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-716 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the UNITED KINGDOM OF 

GREAT BRITAIN AND 

NORTHERN IRELAND 

Signed at Arlington and Bristol 

June 25 and July 16, 2008 

 with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN 

AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

 Defense: Communications 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Arlington and Bristol 

 June 25 and July 16, 2008; 

 Entered into force July 16, 2008. 

 With annex.
2:14-mc-51286-GCS Doc # 2 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2
# C_2008241EN.01002701.xml

| 20.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/27

---

Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 215 of 22 August 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 215 of 22 August 2008

(2008/C 241/12)

On page 45:

for:

| ‘CEN | EN ISO 13849-1:2008
  Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006) | This is the first publication | EN ISO 13849-1:2006
  EN 954-1:1996 | 31.12.2008 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEN | EN ISO 13849-2:2008
  Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 2: Validation (ISO 13849-2:2003) | This is the first publication | EN ISO 13849-2:2003 | 31.12.2008’ |

‘CEN

EN ISO 13849-1:2008

Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006)

This is the first publication

EN ISO 13849-1:2006

EN 954-1:1996

31.12.2008

CEN

EN ISO 13849-2:2008

Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 2: Validation (ISO 13849-2:2003)

This is the first publication

EN ISO 13849-2:2003

31.12.2008’

read:

| ‘CEN | EN ISO 13849-1:2008
  Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006) | This is the first publication | EN ISO 13849-1:2006
  EN 954-1:1996 | 28.12.2009 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEN | EN ISO 13849-2:2008
  Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 2: Validation (ISO 13849-2:2003) | This is the first publication | EN ISO 13849-2:2003 | 28.12.2009’ |

‘CEN

EN ISO 13849-1:2008

Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006)

This is the first publication

EN ISO 13849-1:2006

EN 954-1:1996

28.12.2009

CEN

EN ISO 13849-2:2008

Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 2: Validation (ISO 13849-2:2003)

This is the first publication

EN ISO 13849-2:2003

28.12.2009’

---
# CE2009295EN.01010101.xml

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 295/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 295/101

---

Tuesday 2 September 2008Action programme in the field of lifelong learning ***I

P6_TA(2008)0372

European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1720/2006/EC establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (COM(2008)0061 — C6-0064/2008 — 2008/0025(COD))

2009/C 295 E/28

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0061),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 149(4) and 150(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0064/2008),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0276/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

Tuesday 2 September 2008P6_TC1-COD(2008)0025

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 2 September 2008 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1720/2006/EC establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1357/2008/EC.)

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Paul McDonald,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14078

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.

Jonathan Stone et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On October 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order Granting Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Complaint. The Court found that the allegations

were frivolous. See, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). Plaintiff filed

another Complaint making the same factual allegations. The Court construes the

Complaint as a motion for reconsideration. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion.

Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review: 

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant

motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues

ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The

movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the

parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled

but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the

case.

Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or

plain." Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

"It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration."

Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A]bsent a

significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling on a motion, the Court will not

2:14-cv-14078-VAR-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 12/02/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 49
provide a party with an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided." Id.

McDonald has not demonstrated that the Court committed a palpable defect. 

Instead, he simply filed a second complaint making the same allegations. For the same

reasons that the Court dismissed his first Complaint, the Court dismisses the current

Complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: December 2, 2014

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Paul McDonald by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on December 2, 2014.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:14-cv-14078-VAR-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 12/02/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 50
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

I n the Matter of

SUSAN ANN LOWDEN :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 867 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 32 DB 202 2

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, D

- 142

September Term 2020)

Attorney Registration No. 60228

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th d ay of Ma y , 202 2

, having failed to respond to a Notice and

Order directing her to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline,

Susan Ann Lowden is disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. She shall comply with all provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PARRISH REDD,

Plaintiff, No. 14-14340

v. District Judge Marianne O. Battani

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

TERRANCE VAILS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER STRIKING MOTION

On June 17, 2015, the Court ordered that Plaintiff Parrish Redd was barred from

filing any motions for Clerk’s entry of default or for default judgment without first

obtaining leave of the Court [Doc. #70]. On June 17, 2015, he filed an “emergency”

motion for default judgment against Defendants Chris Hugan and Marty Peters [Doc.

#71]. He did not seek or obtain leave of the Court before filing this motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment [Doc. #71] is

STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: January 31, 2016

-1-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 73 Filed 01/31/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 452
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

January 31, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/C. Ciesla 

Case Manager

-2-

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 73 Filed 01/31/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 453
# C_2012025EN.01003403.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 November 2011 — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-565/11)

(2012/C 25/66)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mariana Irimie

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Can the principle of the effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality of remedies in relation to infringements of Community law to which individuals are subjected as the result of the application of legislation which does not conform to Community law arising from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the right to property laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be regarded as precluding provisions of national law which limit the amount of damage which could be recovered by an individual who has suffered an infringement of his rights?

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHYLLIS STALLINGS, Ed.D.,

Plaintiff, Case No: 14-13189

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant.

/

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL AND STAYING CASE

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed a civil rights complaint and a motion for

appointment of counsel. An Answer was filed. Unlike criminal cases, there is no

constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases. Lavado v

Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6TH Cir. 1993). However, this district has a procedure

in which cases are referred to a Pro Bono Committee which requests members of the

bar to assist in appropriate cases. This Court believes Plaintiff would benefit from the

assistance of counsel.

Accordingly, this case is referred to the Pro Bono Committee. Plaintiff's motion

for appointment of counsel is conditionally granted provided the committee is successful

in enlisting pro bono counsel. If the committee is unsuccessful, counsel will not be

appointed and Plaintiff will proceed pro se or retain counsel at her own expense. In the

interim, this case is STAYED. 

ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

Dated: September 25, 2014 United States District Judge

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 09/25/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 25
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Phyllis Stallings by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on September 25, 2014.

S/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

 

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 09/25/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHIGAN URGENT CARE &

PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-10122

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.

LEGACY 2011 CREDIT INVESTOR, LLC.,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: March 17, 2015

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

record on March 17, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

Case 2:15-cv-10122-DPH-APP ECF No. 9 filed 03/17/15 PageID.27 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.066-5 Design, construction, and manufacturing requirements. ( a ) Each signal must be either: ( 1 ) A self-contained unit with all necessary components for firing the signal, or
( 2 ) A cartridge intended for firing from a signal pistol that is approved under Subpart 160.028 of this chapter.
( b ) Each signal unit must have an interior chamber which contains the main propulsion charge and which is constructed so that it is capable of withstanding the forces generated by ignition without rupture, crack, or deformation of any kind.
( c ) Signals must be constructed in lots numbered serially by the manufacturer. A new lot must be started when: ( 1 ) Any change in construction details occurs;
( 2 ) Any change in sources of raw materials occurs;
( 3 ) Production is started on a new production line or on a previously discontinued production line; or
( 4 ) A lot exceeds 30,000 units.
Case 2:14-cv-14808-AC-MJH ECF No. 12 filed 03/25/15 PageID.37 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:14-cv-14808-AC-MJH ECF No. 12 filed 03/25/15 PageID.38 Page 2 of 2
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EXEL NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12646 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

INTEGRATED DISPENSE 

SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF DEADLINE TO FILE PROPONENT’S EXPERT REPORTS (ECF # 46) 

 On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff Exel North America, Inc. (“Exel”) filed a “Motion 

for Extension of Deadline to File Proponent’s Expert Reports.” (See ECF #46.) 

Defendants filed a response on July 17, 2015. (See ECF #47.) The Court held an 

on-the-record telephonic status conference with counsel for all parties on July 22, 

2015, to discuss Exel’s motion and the status of ongoing discovery. Having 

conferred with the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Exel’s motion is 

GRANTED IN PART as follows: 

1. Defendant Integrated Dispense Solutions LLC (“IDS”) may designate 

portions of the transcript of the previously-taken deposition of Andrew 

Hryckowian (“Hryckowian”) as its testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). 

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 445
2 

2. Exel may conduct a 30(b)(6) deposition of IDS with respect to the 

technical development of the source code at issue in this action. IDS has 

represented that its designee for this deposition will be Hryckowian. 

The deposition shall not exceed 3.5 hours. During this continued 

deposition, Exel shall not ask questions that it asked Hryckowian in the 

portions of his previous deposition that have been designated as IDS’ 

testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). 

3. Exel’s deadline to file its expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) is extended until 30 days following the 

completion of the above-referenced 30(b)(6) deposition. Exel shall 

inform the Court of the date of the deposition so that the Court can reschedule this deadline. 

4. The parties are hereby notified that the Court will hold a telephonic status 

conference on September 21, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: July 22, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 446
3 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on July 22, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 447
Exhibit 32.2
------------

Certification   of  Chief   Financial   Officer   pursuant  to  Section  906  of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Long Island  Financial  Corp.,  (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Thomas
Buonaiuto,  Vice President & Treasurer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(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/ Thomas Buonaiuto
                                       --------------------
                                       Thomas Buonaiuto
                                       Vice President & Treasurer
                                       November 14, 2003

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


                                       26
<PAGE>