alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1929]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


The President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export 
Council

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting via teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council will hold a meeting via 
teleconference to deliberate a draft recommendation to the Secretary of 
Commerce regarding Alternative Energy.

Dates: May 4, 2007.

Time: 12 p.m. (EDST).

For the Conference Call-In Number and Further Information, Contact: The 
Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC, 
20230 (Phone: 202-482-1124), or visit the Council's Web site at http://www.manufacturing.gov/council.

    Dated: April 13, 2007.
Sam Giller,
Staff Director and Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council.
[FR Doc. 07-1929 Filed 4-13-07; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DARLANA OTIS, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:14-cv-13778 

 

v. Honorable: Sean F. Cox 

LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

A Foreign Limited Partnership, 

 Defendant. 

MICHIGAN CONSUMER 

CREDIT LAWYERS 

Gary D. Nitzkin, Esq. (P41155) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

22142 West Nine Mile Road 

Southfield MI 48033 

Phone: (248) 353-2882 

Fax: (248) 353-4840 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

Gregory R. Neidle (P59273) 

Daniel J. Ammon (P50923) 

Attorney for Defendant 

30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 410 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Phone: (248) 723-9511 

Fax: (248) 723-9531 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff, Darlana Otis, through her attorney of record, and 

Defendant, LTD Financial Services, L.P., through its attorney of record, 

being all the parties in this action, stipulate to its immediate dismissal with 

prejudice and without costs and attorney’s fees to any party. 

 

2:14-cv-13778-SFC-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 220
 /s/ Gary D. Nitzkin 

 Gary D. Nitzkin, Esq. (P41155) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 22142 West Nine Mile Road 

 Southfield MI 48033 

 Phone: (248) 353-2882 

/s/ Daniel J. Ammon 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

Daniel J. Ammon (P50923) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

30150 Telegraph Road 

Suite 410 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Phone: (248) 723-9511 

 

Dated: September 30, 2015 

2:14-cv-13778-SFC-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 221
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DARLANA OTIS, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:14-cv-13778 

 

v. Honorable: Sean F. Cox 

LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

A Foreign Limited Partnership, 

 Defendant. 

MICHIGAN CONSUMER 

CREDIT LAWYERS 

Gary D. Nitzkin, Esq. (P41155) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

22142 West Nine Mile Road 

Southfield MI 48033 

Phone: (248) 353-2882 

Fax: (248) 353-4840 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

Gregory R. Neidle (P59273) 

Daniel J. Ammon (P50923) 

Attorney for Defendant 

30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 410 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Phone: (248) 723-9511 

Fax: (248) 723-9531 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 By stipulation of all parties who have appeared in this action and 

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

parties have agreed to the dismissal of this action with prejudice and with 

each party to bear their own costs and attorney fees. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all parties, and without costs and 

2:14-cv-13778-SFC-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 222
attorney’s fees to any party. 

Dated: October 5, 2015 s/ Sean F. Cox 

 Sean F. Cox 

 U. S. District Judge 

2:14-cv-13778-SFC-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 223
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Adelaide Homburger agt. Joseph Homburger.

*At Special Term,*

*December,*1873.

Where there is no sufficient evidence that the husband had the venereal disease, or that he communicated it to his wife, she cannot obtain a divorce from him for adultery without further testimony.

Motion for confirmation of report of referee and for judgment of divorce.

Freedman, J.

The evidence is insufficient. There is no testimony that the defendant had the venereal disease, or that the same was communicated to plaintiff by the defendant. In *Collett*agt. *Collett (Jud. Com. of Privy Council, Wadd. Dig.,*38, *overruling*1 *Curt. Ec.,*678, 686), it was distinctly held that the adultery of the husband cannot be inferred from the mere fact of the wife’s being tainted with venereal disease, although she herself is not even suspected of adultery; that the existence of such disease in the wife is consistent, 1, with the adultery of the *husband; 2,*with her own adultery; and 3, with accidental communication of it; and that where there is no proof of the husband’s having been himself diseased at the time specified in the libel, it will not be ascribed by preference to the first of these causes, even though it appears that at a former time he had infected his wife. To the same effect is *Ferguson*agt. *Ferguson*(3 *Sandf.,*307).

The case is referred back for further proof.
§ 16.101 Purpose of regulations. ( a ) The regulations in this part provide a means to minimize the use of intoxicants by merchant marine personnel and to promote a drug free and safe work environment.
( b ) These regulations prescribe the minimum standards, procedures, and means to be used to test for the use of dangerous drugs.
( c ) As part of a reasonable cause drug testing program established pursuant to this part, employers may test for drugs in addition to those specified in this part only with approval granted by the Coast Guard under 49 CFR part 40 and for substances for which the Department of Health and Human Services has established an approved testing protocol and positive threshold.
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### ANTHONY CASTERELLA, PETITIONER, v. AMERICAN RADIATOR COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

For the petitioner, *Anthony Botli.*

For the respondent, *Clarence B. Tippett.*

Testimony was produced on that day of petitioner, he claiming that around nine A. m., on March 12th, 1928, while pushing a truck, he suddenly felt acute pain in the region of his groin; he described most minutely his work and stated he walked over from the truck to the foreman, reported the alleged occurence, and then went to the first aid, where Dr. Deary examined him.

Without describing in detail the balance of his testimony, I have given due consideration to the nature of his work, type of alleged condition he described, and the subsequent medical proof which was presented, in arriving at my later decision.

Dr. Dearjr testified that he examined this man on March 12th, 1928, finding no evidence of abdominal trouble, but an enlargement in the region of the groin which he described as a varicocele, and he did not consider it was the result of injury; and particularly, he found no hernia.

Dr. Londrigan, who previously had examined this petitioner, by mutual consent made an examination during the progress of this hearing, and reported that at the present time he did not find a hernia, merely a possibility of a potential weakness which might he called a potential hernia.

*796On resumption of trial December 21st, 1928, Dr. Eacciolo was produced by petitioner. He recalled examining this petitioner during March, stating he did not find any hernia, but found what he believed a varicocele condition and suggested examination by Dr. Woodruff.

Without' further comment or enlargement upon the testimony produced, I am satisfied that the petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proof required to merit a compensable award under the statute on the claims advanced, * ****.

Chakles E. Cokbin, *Deputy Commissioner.*
No. 2638.

#### Frank Johnson *v.*The State.

Practice—Evidence—Witness.—The husband or wife is competent to testify for the other in a criminal prosecution, but *not for the State,*unless the prosecution be for an offense committed by the one against the other. This rule is not relaxed by a mere separation of the spouses "without a legal severance of the marriage relation.

Appeal from the County Court of Brazos. Tried below before the Hon. B„ 0. Barmore, County Judge.

The conviction in this case was for an aggravated assault upon Sally King, a female, the penalty assessed being a fine of twenty-five dollars.

The question determined on this appeal does not requite a statement of the proof,

*J, Ao*Buckholts, for the appellant.

*W.*A. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the lower court for aggravated assault upon one Sally King. Sally King was appellant’s step-daughter. Over objections of defendant, his wife, who was the mother of the injured party, was introduced as a witness by the prosecution and allowed to testify against him, as shown by his bill of exceptions.

A husband or wife may, in all criminal actions, be witnesses for each other, but they are expressly prohibited by statute from being witnesses against each other, except in prosecutions for offenses committed by the one against the other. (Penal Code, art. 735; Compton v. The State, 13 Texas Ct. App., 271; Thomas v. The State, 14 Texas Ct. App., 70.)

It is shown by the testimony of the wife that she left her husband- on the day of the alleged assault upon her daughter; that she had not returned to or cohabited with him since, and that she did not intend to live with him again. Such conduct on her part, however, did not operate a dissolution of the mar*136riage, or so alter the relations of the parties in contemplation of law as to render her a competent witness in the case against the husband. (Clanton v. The State, 20 Texas Ct. App., 615; Johnson v. The State, Id., 609.)

Opinion delivered January 26, 1889.

The Assistant Attorney General confesses error on behalf of the State in the ruling of the court in admitting the wife to testify, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remand,ed.*
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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 Annual Report of Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
      with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:April
                2, 2007
            By:
            */s/
              C. Thomas McMillen*Name:C.
                Thomas McMillenTitle:Chief
                Executive Officer
                and
                  Principal Accounting Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      and
      will be retained by Homeland Security Capital Corporation and furnished to
      the
      U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-18265 of Biofield Corp. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 22, 2002
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an emphasis of
matter paragraph concerning Biofield Corp.'s status as a Development Stage
Enterprise) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Biofield Corp. for
the year ended December 31, 2001 and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of such Registration Statement.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2002
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Inovec, Inc., an Oregon corporation
InVision International, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Quantum Magnetics, Inc., a California corporation
Yxlon International Security GmbH, a German limited liability corporation
Yxlon International X-Ray GmbH, a German limited liability corporation
Yxlon International CT GmbH, a German limited liability corporation
Yxlon International Holding GmbH, a German limited liability corporation
Yxlon International A/S, a Danish corporation
Yxlon International KK, a Japanese limited liability corporation
Yxlon International Inc., a Delaware corporation
InVision Technologies Verwaltungs GmbH, a German limited liability corporation
InVision Technologies Beteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG, a German limited liability
corporation
InVision Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation
Imatron Federal Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
WoodVision, Inc., a Delaware corporation
#### § 96.102 Carryover of unobligated funds.

In implementing section 1925(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300y-4(a)(2)), the Secretary will determine that there is good cause for funds remaining unobligated if planned obligations could not be carried out because of a bona fide reason or if the State has determined that program objectives would be better served by deferring obligation of the funds to the following year.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge: (a)
     the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(b)
     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period. Date: August 9, 2011 /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.

§ 154.1852 Air breathing equipment. ( a ) The master shall ensure that a licensed officer inspects the compressed air breathing equipment at least once each month.
( b ) The master shall enter in the vessel's log a record of the inspection required under paragraph (a) of this section that includes: ( 1 ) The date of the inspection; and
( 2 ) The condition of the equipment at the time of the inspection.
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.115-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes standards, tests, and procedures for seeking Coast Guard approval of a winch used in conjunction with a davit approved under subpart 160.132 of this part for lifeboats approved under subpart 160.135 of this part, liferafts approved under subparts 160.051 or 160.151 of this part, and rescue boats approved under subparts 160.056 or 160.156 of this part.
§ 127.230 Subdivision and stability. ( a ) Each vessel must meet the applicable requirements in subchapter S of this chapter.
( b ) An OSV of at least 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) that is of at least 80 meters in length is not required to comply with part 174, subpart G of this chapter.
[CGD 82-004 and CGD 86-074, 62 FR 49328, Sept. 19, 1997, as amended by USCG-2012-0208, 79 FR 48936, Aug. 18, 2014]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

D-14 KUTUB MESIWALA, M.D.,

 Defendant. 

/

Case No. 13-cr-20892 

Hon. George Caram Steeh 

STIPULATED ORDER TO ADJOURN SENTENCING DATE 

It is hereby agreed between the parties, in conjunction with a conference with 

the Court, that Defendant’s December 9, 2021 sentencing at 10:00 a.m. shall be 

adjourned to January 13, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Saima S. Mohsin 

Acting United States Attorney 

/s/ Shankar Ramamurthy (with consent) 

Shankar Ramamurthy 

Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, Fraud Section 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(202) 924-5368

shankar.ramamurthy@usdoj.gov

Counsel for United States

Clark Hill PLC 

/s/ Martin E. Crandall 

Martin E. Crandall 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 965-8413

mcrandall@clarkhill.com

Counsel for Defendant Kutub Mesiwala

Case 2:13-cr-20892-GCS-RSW ECF No. 495, PageID.3534 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s sentencing is adjourned from 

December 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. until January 13, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. 

Dated: December 3, 2021 s/George Caram Steeh 

Hon. George Caram Steeh 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cr-20892-GCS-RSW ECF No. 495, PageID.3535 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 2
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.

§ 154.1110 Areas protected by system. Each water spray system must protect: ( a ) All cargo tank surfaces that are not covered by the vessel's hull structure or a steel cover;
( b ) Each cargo tank dome;
( c ) Each on-deck storage vessel for flammable or toxic liquefied gases;
( d ) Each cargo discharge and loading manifold;
( e ) Each quick-closing valve under §§ 154.530, 154.532, and 154.538, and other control valves essential to cargo flow;
( f ) Each boundary facing the cargo area of each superstructure that contains accommodation, service, or control spaces;
( g ) Each boundary facing the cargo area of each deckhouse that contains accommodation, service, or control spaces; and
( h ) Each boundary of each deckhouse that is within the cargo area and that is manned during navigation of the vessel or during cargo transfer operations, except the deckhouse roof if it is 2.4 m (8 ft.) or higher above the cargo containing structure.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979; 44 FR 59234, Oct. 15, 1979]
# C_2012133EN.01001401.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/14

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-599/11 P)

2012/C 133/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal, or, on the contested basis that the appeal is dismissed, order that such costs be shared. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal, or, on the contested basis that the appeal is dismissed, order that such costs be shared.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.

In the appellant’s view the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law in determining, under new criteria, that there was a likelihood of confusion in the light of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. According to the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient, in order for the existence of a conceptual similarity to be established, that both terms are taken from a common overarching term, and that, although conceptually different, they do not contrast with each other, which is inconsistent with existing case-law.

Second, the General Court erred in law in determining that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking all the relevant and accepted criteria for the assessment of the similarity of trade marks into account. In the present case, the only common element is at the end of the mark cited in opposition. According to settled case-law, consumers generally pay more attention to the beginning of a trade mark than to the end.

---