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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ABDIAS ANTOINE, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 14-14933 

 HON TERRENCE G. BERG 

 v. 

THOMAS MACKIE. 

 Respondent. 

______________________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

 

The above entitled matter came before the Court on a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. In accordance with the Court’s Opinion and Order entered on 

November 2, 2015: 

1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

2) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 

3) Petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 

Dated at Flint, Michigan: November 2, 2015. 

 DAVID J. WEAVER 

CLERK OF THE COURT 

 s/Amanda Chubb 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

APPROVED: 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 17 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 557
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

record on this date, November 2, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/A. Chubb 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 17 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 558
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael Martini, Chief Financial Officer of Saba Software, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended February 29, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,“filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date: April 8, 2008
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.

§ 154.435 General. ( a ) The design of a semi-membrane tank, the supporting insulation for the tank, and the supporting hull structure for the tank must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
( b ) A semi-membrane tank must be designed to meet: ( 1 ) § 154.425 through § 154.432;
( 2 ) § 154.437 through § 154.440; or
( 3 ) § 154.444 through § 154.449.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
2:14-cr-20827-MOB-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 16
2:14-cr-20827-MOB-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 17
2:14-cr-20827-MOB-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 18
2:14-cr-20827-MOB-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 19
2:14-cr-20827-MOB-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 20
# C_2012006EN.01001502.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission

(Case T-58/11) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations - Legal basis - Competence of the author of the act - Principle of non-discrimination)

2012/C 6/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2010, delivered in Case F-82/09 Nolin v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Nolin

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michel Nolin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michel Nolin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

1

---
# C_2011095EN.01001402.xml

| 26.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/14

---

Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Bojinova and Ghiba v Commission

(Case F-10/11)

2011/C 95/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Silvia Bojinova (Brussels, Belgium) and Dorina Maria Ghiba (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the selection boards for competitions COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and COM/INT/EU2/AST3 to reject the applicants’ candidatures on the ground that they did not meet the eligibility requirements stipulated in the notices of competition.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 11 May 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Silvia Bojinova’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 16 August 2010: |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 11 May 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Silvia Bojinova’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 16 August 2010:

| — | annul the decision of 10 Mau 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Dorina Maria Ghiba’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/AST3 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 4 August 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 Mau 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Dorina Maria Ghiba’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/AST3 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 4 August 2010;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
§ 167.01-8 Inspection of school ships using gross tonnage criterion. ( a ) One of the criteria used for invocation of safety standards is the descriptions of school ships by relative sizes in gross tonnages. When it is determined in accordance with § 70.05-20 of this chapter that a particular school ship has a Bureau of Customs' assigned gross register tonnage which is not indicative of the relative physical size of the vessel, the requirements in this part and the manning shall be that applicable to a vessel of the greater relative size.
[CGFR 60-50, 25 FR 7982, Aug. 18, 1960]
# C_2011347EN.01000801.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-438/11)

2011/C 347/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, in which the authority of the third country can no longer verify whether the certificate issued by it is based on a correct account of the facts, is the person liable for payment to be denied the protection of legitimate expectations provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) where the circumstances on account of which it is impossible to clarify whether the content of the certificate of origin is correct fall within the sphere of control of the exporter, or is the transfer of the burden of proof, in the context of the third subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, from the customs authority to the person liable for payment subject only, or rather, to the condition that clarification is impossible because it is outside the control of the authority in the exporting country or caused by the negligence of the exporter alone?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) in the version as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

1

---
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.

§ 154.1740 Vinyl chloride: Inhibiting and inerting. When a vessel is carrying vinyl chloride, the master shall ensure that: ( a ) Section 154.1818 is met; or
( b ) Section 154.1710 is met, and the oxygen content of inert gas is less than 0.1% by volume.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT MICHIGAN 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No. 2:14-cv-14315-VAR-RSW 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address ) 

76.112.222.172, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 )

AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE 

THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve A Third 

Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (the “Motion”), and the Court being duly 

advised in the premises does hereby: 

FIND, ORDER AND ADJUDGE: 

1. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third party subpoena 

on Comcast Cable (hereinafter the “ISP”). See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2014 WL 3846036 

(E.D. Mich. 2014); Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1–16, 2013 WL 1385206 (E.D. Tenn. 2013); 

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–9, 2013 WL 142083 (E.D. Mich. 2013) 

2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to 

provide Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the 

Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Complaint. 

Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order. 

2:14-cv-14315-VAR-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 12/05/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 39
 2 

3. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any 

service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services to 

one of the Defendants. 

4. If the ISP that qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), 

which states: 

the term “cable operator” means any person or group of persons 

(A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one 

or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or 

(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the 

management and operation of such a cable system. 

shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which states: 

A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] information if the 

disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the 

subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed. 

 

by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant. 

5. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 

subpoena served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as set 

forth in its Complaint. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2014. 

 By: S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14315-VAR-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 12/05/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 40
Exhibit 32.2

Certificate 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 Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tatina Brooks, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Tatina BrooksTatina Brooks, Senior Vice President of Accounting and Financial Reporting (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


November 15, 2010
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.073-15 Tests. ( a ) The manufacturer shall perform a tensile test on the first three links made from a particular spool of wire. The test must be done by slowly loading the link until it breaks. The link must break between the limits specified in § 160.073-10(b). The break must occur in the length of wire at or between the points where the loops are secured (see Figure 160.073-10).
( b ) If each of the three links passes the test, each link constructed in the same manner from the same spool of wire may be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the requirements of this subpart.
( c ) If one or more of the three links fails the test, no link manufactured in the same manner and from the same spool of wire as the test links may be certified as meeting the requirements of this subpart.
#### § 81.54 Request for hearing.

Within 20 days after service of a notice of opportunity for hearing which does not fix a date for hearing the respondent, either in his answer or in a separate document, may request a hearing. Failure of the respondent to request a hearing shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing and to constitute his consent to the making of a decision on the basis of such information as is available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES DENT, #214488,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14-CV-13272

v. HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

DAVID BERGH,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration concerning the

Court’s September 13, 2017 opinion and order denying his habeas petition on the merits. The Court

also denied a certificate of appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision. A motion for

reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by

reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D.

Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). 

Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled

or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as

required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration. This case remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: October 26, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, October 26, 2017, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.028-2 Classification. ( a ) Portable and semi-portable extinguishers must be marked with a combined number and letter designation. The letter designates the general class of fire for which the extinguisher is suitable as identified in NFPA 10 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.028-1). The number indicates the relative extinguishing potential of the device as rated by UL 711 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.028-1).
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGFR 60-36, 25 FR 10640, Nov. 5, 1960, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48278, July 22, 2016]
From: "Jane Leiderman" ^ne20@pacbell.net> 

To: <tobrien@feagov>, 

Date: 07/19/2016 01:48 PM 

Subject RE: Ted Lieu for Congress - Reaponse to Draft Final Audit Report 

Good Morning Terry, 

Just to let you know, I am not going to request a hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thank you, -

Jane.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.007-2 Purpose.

The purpose of this specification is to set forth tests necessary to measure the insulation value of structural insulation specimens under fire exposure conditions. The tests are not intended to measure the integrity of structural components of an assembly Insulation meeting this specification is adequate to limit the average temperature rise of a steel bulkhead to 139 °C. (250 °F.) at the end of a 60-minute standard fire test.
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 161.013-3 General performance requirements. ( a ) Each electric light must: ( 1 ) Emit a white light which meets the intensity requirements of § 161.013-5;
( 2 ) Be capable of automatic signaling in a manner which meets the requirements of § 161.013-7;
( 3 ) Contain an independent power source which meets the requirements of § 161.013-9;
( 4 ) Float in fresh water with the lens surface at or above the surface of the water;
( 5 ) Be equipped with a waterproof switch; and
( 6 ) Meet the requirement of paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section after floating for at least 72 hours followed by submersion in 5% by weight sodium chloride solution for at least 2 hours.
( b ) The electric light may not be equipped with a switch mechanism which permits continuous display of a beam of light except that the light may be equipped with a switch which returns to the off position when pressure is released.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.013-5 Acceptance tests.

Manufacturers shall ensure that the performance and identification tests described in UL 1191, as appropriate, are performed on a minimum of five samples in each of the lightest and darkest colors submitted for acceptance by a recognized laboratory accepted under § 164.019.
EX-32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Report on Form 10-QSB of
Redhand International, Inc. I, Laurie Brewis Vice-President and
Chief Executive Officer of Redhand International, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)     such Report on Form 10-QSB, 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 such Report on Form 10-QSB,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Redhand International, Inc.



                                  By: /s/ Laurie Brewis
                                  --------------------------------------
                                  Laurie Brewis
                                  Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### § 15.1020 Hawaii.

The following offshore marine oil terminals located within U.S. navigable waters of the State of Hawaii: *Barbers Point, Island of Oahu.* The waters including the Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc. and the Chevron moorings lying within an area bounded by a line bearing 180 degrees true from Barbers Point Light to latitude 21°14.8′N, longitude 158°06.4′W, thence easterly to latitude 21°14.8′N, longitude 158°03.3′W, thence northeasterly to latitude 21°15.6′N, longitude 158°01.1′W, thence northwesterly to latitude 21°18.5′N, longitude 158°02.0′W, thence westerly along the shoreline to latitude 21°17.8′N, longitude 158°06.4′W.