alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1840]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 18457]]



AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Meeting: African Development Foundation, Board of Directors Meeting.

Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 8:45 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Place: African Development Foundation, Conference Room, 1400 I Street, 
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.

Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2007.

Status:
    1. Open session, April 24, 2007, 8:45 a.m. to 12 p.m.; and,
    2. Closed session, April 24, 2007, 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.
    Due to security requirements and limited seating, all individuals 
wishing to attend the open sessions of the meeting must notify Doris 
Martin, General Counsel, at (202) 673-3916 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdd0cfd4cbdccfd9fdc8cedcd9db93dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="167b647f6077647256636577727038717960">[email protected]</span></a> of your 
request to attend by 9 a.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2007.

Rodney J. MacAlister,
President.
[FR Doc. 07-1840 Filed 4-10-07; 3:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 6117-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2014431EN.01004701.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — AY v Council

(Case F-23/11 RENV) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Decision not to promote the applicant))

(2014/C 431/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AY (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Council’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to Grade AST 9 under the 2010 promotion procedure and compensation for the non-material harm suffered. Case T-167/12 P referred back by the General Court after appeal.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that AY is to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F-23/11, T-167/12 P and F-23/11 RENV respectively and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-23/11; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that AY is to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F-23/11, T-167/12 P and F-23/11 RENV respectively and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-23/11;

| 3. | Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs incurred in Cases T-167/12 P and F-23/11 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs incurred in Cases T-167/12 P and F-23/11 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30/07/2011, p. 31.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TARAS NYKORIAK,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-13646

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

AMCOL SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Because Plaintiff has taken no steps to prosecute this action, including

responding to discovery requests and cooperating in preparing the joint final

pretrial order, the court issued an Order to Show Cause on September 30, 2015. 

The order gave Plaintiff until October 16, 2015, to demonstrate why this action

should not be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show

Cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: November 12, 2015

5:14-cv-13646-JCO-DRG Doc # 27 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 112
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the

parties of record on this date, November 12, 2015, using the ECF system and/or

ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

5:14-cv-13646-JCO-DRG Doc # 27 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 113
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Colonycollapse disorder progress report [electronic resource].**** 
SuDoc:A 77.738:
ItemNumber:0026-A-91(online)
CGPsystem Number:000862276
 
2007-2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
 **
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**EvolutionPetroleum Corporation – A Nevada Corporation**

RobertS. Herlin –   President and ChiefExecutive Officer

SterlingMcDonald –   Chief FinancialOfficer/Treasurer

DavidJoe – Secretary

 

**NGSTechnologies, Inc. – A Delaware Corporation**

RobertS. Herlin –   President and ChiefExecutive Officer

SterlingMcDonald –   Chief FinancialOfficer/Treasurer

DavidJoe – Secretary

 

**EvolutionOperating Co., Inc. – A Texas Corporation**

RobertHerlin – President and Chief Executive Officer

SterlingH. McDonald – Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

DarylMazzanti – Vice President, Operations

DavidJoe – Secretary

 

**FourStar Development – A Louisiana Corporation (Sold 3/3/08)**

RobertS. Herlin – Manager

SterlingMcDonald – Manager

 

**ArklaPetroleum, L.L.C. – A Louisiana Corporation**

RobertS. Herlin – Manager

SterlingMcDonald – Manager

 

**NGSSub. Corp. – A Delaware Corporation**

RobertS. Herlin –   President and ChiefExecutive Officer

SterlingMcDonald –   Chief FinancialOfficer/Treasurer

DavidJoe – Secretary

 

**TertiaireResources Company - A Texas Corporation**

RobertS. Herlin –   Director

SterlingMcDonald - Director

DarylMazzanti – Director

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARNELL ELLSWORTH HAYES

Petitioner,

Civil Case No. 15-10081

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

SHERRY BURT,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability. In his motion, Petitioner seeks a certificate of appeability with 

respect to all of the claims asserted in his application for the writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in order to appeal this Court’s January 9, 2018 

decision denying him relief.

The Court concluded in its January 9 decision that Petitioner is entitled to a 

certificate of appealability with respect to only his claim related to the introduction 

of evidence about threats to Brian Tilles. (ECF No. 10 at Pg ID 2036.) The Court 

found that reasonable jurists could not debate its assessment of Petitioner’s 

remaining claims. In his pending motion, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that this 

conclusion was wrong.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in that Petitioner is GRANTED

a certificate of appealability with respect to the following issue, only:

Whether Petitioner was deprived a fair trial when the trial 

court admitted testimony that a key witness, Brian Tilles, 

was reluctant to testify due to threats.

Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability with respect his remaining 

claims. 

Dated: February 6, 2018 s/Linda V. Parker

U.S. District Court Judge

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

record on February 6, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens acting in the absence of Richard Loury

Case Manager
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.1864 Vessel speed within speed reduction.

The master shall ensure that the speed of the vessel is not greater than the posted speed reduction.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.161-7 Inspections at production. ( a ) The system must be inspected in accordance with this section and 46 CFR 159.007-1 through 159.007-13, and tested using any additional tests that the Commandant (CG-5214) may deem necessary to maintain control of quality and to ensure compliance with this subpart.
( b ) The manufacturer must: ( 1 ) Institute procedures to maintain control over the materials used, over the manufacturing of the systems, and over the finished systems;
( 2 ) Admit the independent laboratory inspector and any representative of the Coast Guard to any place where work is being done on systems and any place where parts or complete systems are stored;
( 3 ) Allow the independent laboratory inspector and any representative of the Coast Guard to take samples of systems for tests prescribed by this subpart; and
( 4 ) Conduct a leakage test on each system cylinder-valve assembly in accordance with subsections 57.1 through 57.4.2 of UL 2166 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2) for halocarbon systems or subsection 55.4 of UL 2127 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2) for inert gas systems.
# C_2011282EN.01005103.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/51

---

Action brought on 12 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-66/11)

2011/C 282/97

Language of the case: French

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

Annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests.

Form of order sought by the applicant

Form of order sought by the applicant

| — | As a main claim:






  — | annul the decision adopted on 7 April 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretary, grade AST 1; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

As a main claim:

—

annul the decision adopted on 7 April 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretary, grade AST 1;

| — | as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests;

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, order the defendant to pay, by way of material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000, together with interest for late payment at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, order the defendant to pay, by way of material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000, together with interest for late payment at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

| — | in any event, order the defendant to pay, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000, together with interest for late payment at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendant to pay, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000, together with interest for late payment at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARVIN DABISH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-13878 

FATINA DABISH, et al., HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

 HON. ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 24) 

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s 

March 31, 2015 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 24), which recommends that: 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. 5) be DENIED; Defendants Fatina and Nasseer 

Dabish be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P 21; Plaintiff’s motions for default 

judgment (Dkts. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) be DENIED; Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, 

N.A.’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 3) be GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment (Dkt. 20) be DENIED. 

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 

and finds that it is well-reasoned and reaches the correct result. The law provides 

that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after 

being served with a copy” of the report and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report 

. . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party objects to the 

4:14-cv-13878-TGB-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 419
2 

report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court will, therefore, accept 

Magistrate Judge Stafford’s Report and Recommendation of March 31, 2015, as this 

Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stafford’s Report 

and Recommendation of March 31, 2015 (Dkt. 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. 5) is DENIED; 

Defendants Fatina and Nasseer Dabish are dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P 21; 

Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Dkts. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) are DENIED; 

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 3) is GRANTED; 

and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) is DENIED. Judgment will 

be entered in favor of Defendants, and against Plaintiff. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 21, 2015 s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on April 21, 

2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties, and was 

served upon unrepresented parties via ordinary mail. 

 s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:14-cv-13878-TGB-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 420
Exhibit 32.2



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 First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael C. Frederick, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                             
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE: November 14, 2005 |  | BY: |  | /s/ Michael C. Frederick                                    
|                        |  |     |  | Michael C. Frederick                                        
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                     5
       
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                        902,122
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 177,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   49,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              1,179,674
<PP&E>                                                        868,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                                331,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                1,932,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         748,830
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                      1,511
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   247
<OTHER-SE>                                                    953,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  1,932,407
<SALES>                                                       2,945,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              3,432,084
<CGS>                                                         1,528,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 1,262,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              5,718,196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            16,019
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (3,830,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (3,830,752)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (2.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (2.73)
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
§ 12.205 Examination procedures and denial of rating and STCW endorsements. ( a ) The examination fee set out in Table 1 to § 10.219(a) of this subchapter must be paid before the applicant may take the first section of the examination.
( b ) Upon receipt of an application for a rating endorsement, the Coast Guard will give any required examination as soon as practicable after determining that the applicant is otherwise qualified for the endorsement.
( c ) An applicant for a rating endorsement who has been duly examined and failed the examination may seek reexamination at any time after the initial examination. However, an applicant who fails an examination for the third time must wait 90 days before re-testing. All examinations and retests must be completed within 1 year of approval for examination.
( d ) Upon receipt of an application for an STCW endorsement, the Coast Guard will evaluate the applicant's qualifications. The Coast Guard will issue the appropriate endorsement after determining that the applicant satisfactorily meets all requirements for any requested STCW rating or qualification.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7342 

ROBERT EARL VANCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JURELL BYRD, Jail Administrator; PATSIE

JOHNSON, Jail Official; KATHY FRANKLIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(CA-04-715-8-RBH)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,

CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Vance appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to Defendants in Vance’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) suit. The district court referred this case to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate

judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended

granting summary judgment to Defendants. The district court

adopted the report and recommendation, finding that Vance failed to

file specific objections.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation is necessary to preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the

parties have been warned that failure to object will waive

appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). On

appeal, Vance does not challenge the district court’s conclusion

that his objections were merely general. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)

(failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of

that claim). Accordingly, we conclude that Vance has waived

appellate review of both the substance of the magistrate judge’s

report and the district court’s construction of his objections.
- 3 -

Thus, we affirm the order of the district court. We

dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED