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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMIE JANISCH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

REVENUE MANAGEMENT, 

Defendant(s).

 / 

Case No. 14-14885

Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court was advised on June 04, 2015 that a settlement had been

reached in above entitled action and dismissal papers would be submitted

within 30 days. As of July 15, 2015, the Court has not received dismissal

papers. In accordance with the parties representations,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without costs

and WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The case may be reopened, if necessary, by

motion of either party without payment of additional fees or costs to the right

of plaintiff, upon good cause shown within thirty (30) days, to move to vacate

this order if settlement is not consummated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties seek to have the Court

enter an order embodying the specific terms of settlement with an order of

Case 2:14-cv-14885-GER-RSW ECF No. 15 filed 07/15/15 PageID.45 Page 1 of 2
14-14885 Janisch v. Revenue Management

Order of Dismissal

dismissal with prejudice or a judgment, then the first paragraph of said

stipulation and proposed order should provide for the above order of dismissal

to be vacated for purposes of entry of the order or judgment contemplated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: July 15, 2015

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

parties and/or counsel of record on July 15, 2015, by electronic and/or

ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

Case 2:14-cv-14885-GER-RSW ECF No. 15 filed 07/15/15 PageID.46 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN W. NORRIS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-13559

v.

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 23)

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I.

This is a social security case. Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of

an unfavorable decision regarding his disability benefits. The matter was referred to a

magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. On March 15, 2016, the magistrate judge

issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that case be dismissed

with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and because

substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled. 

(Doc. 23). As detailed in the MJRR, the recommendation comes after plaintiff was

directed to obtain new counsel or proceed pro se, was deemed to be proceeding pro se,

failed to file a supplemental brief, and failed to respond to the magistrate judge’s order

to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

2:14-cv-13559-AC-PTM Doc # 24 Filed 03/31/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 386
II.

Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections

has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate

judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. This case is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and because substantial evidence supports the

Commissioner’s decision.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

 AVERN COHN

Dated: March 31, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Detroit, Michigan

2

2:14-cv-13559-AC-PTM Doc # 24 Filed 03/31/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 387
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


REGIONS 


1595 Wynkoop Street 


DENVER, CO 80202-1129 


Phone 800-227-8917 


http://www.epa.gov/region08 


AUG - 1 2012 

Ref: 8P-AR 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED & ELECTRONIC MAIL 

John McMichael 

Environmental Engineer 

XTO Energy, Inc. 

810 Houston Street 

Ft. Worth, Texas 76102 

RE: Actual Notice for Approval and Promulgation of 

Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas 

Production Facilities 

Dear Mr. McMichael, 

This is to notify you that the EPA has issued a temporary interim final rule promulgating a reservationspecific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in order to regulate emissions from oil and natural gas 

production facilities located on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (FBIR). The FIP includes basic air 

quality regulations for the protection of communities in and adjacent to the FBIR. The FIP requires 

owners and operators ofoil and natural gas production facilities to reduce emissions of volatile organic 

compounds emanating from well completions, recompletions, and production and storage operations. 

The agency proposed a reservation-specific FIP concurrently with this interim final rule. 

The rule is effective with this actual notice to XTO Energy, Inc. for purposes of enforcement beginning 

at 5 p.m. (eastern daylight time) on August 3, 2012. We will accept comments on the proposed rule for 

45 days from the date ofpublication in the Federal Register. The EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, 

signed the interim final rule on August 1,2012, and the agency is submitting it for publication in the 

Federal Register (FR). 
A copy ofthe signed interim final rule is enclosed with this letter. The version ofthe enclosed rule 

serves as the official version for purposes of compliance until the interim final rule is published in the 

FR. Please refer to the published version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the 

Government Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on 

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R08-0AR-2012-0479. 

If you have any questions on the interim final rule, please contact Deirdre Rothery at (303) 312-6431. 

Carl Daly, Directo 

Air Program 

Enclosures 

2
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.003-5 Procedure for approval. ( a ) Processed kapok is not subject to formal approval, but will be accepted by the inspector on the basis of this subpart for use in the manufacture of lifesaving equipment utilizing it.
( b ) [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


SUBSIDIARY                                              PLACE OF INCORPORATION
----------                                              ----------------------

Ticketmaster Multimedia Holdings, Inc.                  Delaware

Match.com, Inc.                                         Delaware

Cityauction, Inc.                                       California

2b Technology, Inc.                                     Virginia

Sidewalk.com, Inc.                                      Nevada

TicketWeb, Inc.                                         Delaware

Citysearch Canada Inc.                                  Ontario, Canada

Ticketmaster Online-Citysearch Canada, Ltd.             Ontario, Canada

Ticketmaster Online-Citysearch UK Limited               United Kingdom

Ticketweb (UK) Ltd. (wholly-owned through               United Kingdom
  TicketWeb, Inc.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2238 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 

an order regarding secondary cockpit barriers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2009 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an order regarding secondary cockpit 

barriers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) The safety and security of the civil air 

6 transportation system is critical to the United States 

7 security and its national defense. 

8 (2) A safe and secure United States civil air 

9 transportation system is essential to the basic freeVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:08 May 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2238.IH H2238

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2238 IH

1 dom of Americans to move in intrastate, interstate, 

2 and international transportation. 

3 (3) Terrorists have previously used planes as 

4 weapons and exploited United States aviation secu5 rity. 

6 (4) Reinforced cockpit doors that must be 

7 opened for physiological and operational needs 

8 present a clear vulnerability when the doors are open 

9 and this compromises the security and safety of the 

10 aircraft and its passengers. 

11 (5) Many all-cargo aircraft do not have a cock12 pit door installed for protection from passenger ag13 gressors and stowaways. 

14 SEC. 2. IMPROVED FLIGHT DECK INTEGRITY MEASURES. 

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

16 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

17 Federal Aviation Administration shall issue an order— 

18 (1) requiring the installation of secondary bar19 riers preventing access to the flight deck of any com20 mercial aircraft operating under part 121 of title 14, 

21 Code of Federal Regulations; and 

22 (2)(A) for an aircraft that is equipped with a 

23 cockpit door, requiring that such secondary barriers 

24 remain locked while the aircraft is in flight and the 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2238 IH

1 cockpit door separating the flight deck and the pas2 senger area is open; and 

3 (B) for an aircraft that is not equipped with a 

4 cockpit door, requiring that such secondary barriers 

5 remain locked as determined by the pilot in com6 mand. 

7 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In issuing an order under 

8 this section, the Administrator shall take into account— 

9 (1) the most promising and cost effective of the 

10 available technologies relating to secondary barriers 

11 described in subsection (a); and 

12 (2) the cost and time schedule for deploying 

13 such barriers. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# C_2013038EN.01003103.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Lebedef and Others v Commission

(Case F-110/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - First subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Corrective coefficient - Act adversely affecting an official - Equal treatment)

2013/C 38/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Lebedef and Others (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months to the extent that they contain no correction of the adjustment of remunerations taking account of the corrective coefficient for their place of employment.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Messrs Lebedef, Jones and Gonzales Gonzales and Mrs Lebedef-Caponi to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Messrs Lebedef, Jones and Gonzales Gonzales and Mrs Lebedef-Caponi to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 26.

1

---
Argued and submitted December 13, 1995,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration January 24, 1996

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Terry L. Starnes, Claimant. Terry L. STARNES, *Petitioner, v.*OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and SAIF Corporation, *Respondents.*

(WCB 93-07378; CA A88263)

909 P2d 904

Gloria D. Schmidt argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Michael O. Whitty, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of 1995 amendments to ORS 656.273. *Volk v. America West Airlines,*135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995).
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11


                     STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA
                         NET LOSS PER COMMON AND COMMON
                                EQUIVALENT SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Average Shares Outstanding
                                                                  As of December 31,
                         Shares                               --------------------------
                         Issued              Issue Date                 1996
                        ---------           -----------             -----------
<S>                     <C>                 <C>                      <C>
Common Stock            3,122,448                (a)                  3,122,448
Common Stock               15,000            10/3/95                     15,000
Common Stock            3,600,000            9/29/95 (b)              3,600,000
Common Stock              426,000           12/12/95 (b)                426,000
Common Stock            4,000,000            3/22/96 (c)              3,123,288
Common Stock              309,000            3/22/96 (d)                241,274
Common Stock              148,869                 (e)                    28,808
Common Stock               10,673                 (f)                     3,964
Common Stock              424,444                 (g)                   424,444
Common Stock              125,556                 (g)                   125,556
Common Stock            1,175,000                 (g)                 1,175,000
                                                                    -----------
                                                                     12,285,782
                                                                    ===========
</TABLE>




Method Used For Calculation

(a) Represents Common Stock issued in connection with the recapitalization of
    Eagle River Interactive, Inc. in 1995.

(b) Originally issued as Series A Preferred Stock and converted to Common Stock
    in 1996.  Calculation assumes conversion on the date of issuance.

(c) Shares issued in conjunction with the Company's initial public offering.

(d) Shares issued to the underwriters in conjunction with the Company's initial
    public offering.

(e) Shares issued upon exercise of stock options at various dates throughout
    1996.

(f) Shares issued pursuant to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan at various dates
    throughout 1996.

(g) Shares issued in connection with the GM and Mastering Computers mergers (see
    footnote 2 in the financial statements)
Exhibit 32(b)

                                  Certification

           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
       (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                              United States Code)

In connection with the Annual Report of Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Concetta Pryor, Chief Financial Officer 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 to my knowledge: (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.

/s/ Concetta Pryor
------------------
Concetta Pryor
Chief Financial Officer
November 17, 2003

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 111.05-7 Armored and metallic sheathed cable.

When installed, the metallic armor or sheath must meet the installation requirements of Section 6 of IEEE 45.8-2016 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).

[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16360, Mar. 16, 2023]
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### SELMA VAN VLADRICKEN, PETITIONER, v. WILLIAM SIMPSON, RESPONDENT.

*2.*Whereas on the 29th day of November, 1926, the petitioner’s decedent suffered an accident while getting off of one of the respondents motor trucks, in which his foot was badly smashed, so that the hones protruded from the ankle joint, which was bleeding at the time of his admission to the Hackensack Hospital, and

3. Whereas death was directly caused by a pulmonary embolus, which resulted from the injury received by the petitioner’s decedent, and

4. Whereas the evidence submitted in this ease shows that the petitioner’s decedent on the morning of the alleged accident was picked up by an employe of the respondent named James Tiebant, who was operating a truck for the respondent at the time, for the sole purpose of giving the petitioner’s decedent a ride, and

5. Whereas it further appears that the petitioner’s decedent was doing no work for the respondent and was not assigned by the respondent to the truck, upon which he was riding, to do anything toward carrying out the business of the respondent, and

6. Whereas it further appears that the petitioner’s decedent had lived and slept in a house owned hv the respondent for a period of eleven months and some days, which fact cor*742responds to the testimony of the petitioner that she and the petitioner’s decedent had been separated for the same period of time, and

*7.*Whereas it further appears that the petitioner’s decedent had never been a regular employe of the respondent, but had merely done odd jobs for the respondent from time to time, when the petitioner’s decedent was not otherwise employed and when the respondent had odd jobs for him to do, and

8. Whereas it appears that the petitioner’s decedent was not engaged in the emplojunent of the respondent at the time of the accident, which caused the injury, from which he died.

I, therefore, find that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation from the respondent, inasmuch as the petitioner’s decedent was not employed by the respondent at the time that he received the injury, which caused his death, but was merely riding on one of the respondent’s trucks with the permission of the respondent.

I, therefore, order that the petition filed in the within case be dismissed and that a judgment be entered in favor of the respondent.

Harry J. Goas, *Deputy Commissioner.*
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.058-1 Applicable specification. ( a ) *Specification.* The following specification, of the issue in effect on the date the desalter kits are manufactured, forms a part of this subpart: ( 1 ) *Military specification.* MIL-D-5531D—Desalter Kit, Sea Water, Mark 2.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Copies on file.* A copy of the specification referred to in this section shall be kept on file by the manufacturer, together with the approved plans and certificate of approval. The Military Specification may be obtained from the Military Specifications and Standards, Standardization Documents Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, *https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ .*
[CGFR 65-9, 30 FR 11483, Sept. 8, 1965, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60157, Sept. 30, 2013]
#### § 169.855 Pre-underway training.

Prior to getting underway the master shall ensure that each sailing school student and sailing school instructor, who has not previously been instructed, is instructed in the handling of sails, emergency procedures, nautical terms, location and use of lifesaving and firefighting equipment, and the general layout of the vessel.
# C_2012025EN.01003303.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 November 2011 — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-557/11)

(2012/C 25/63)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maria Kozak

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (Director of the Tax Chamber, Lublin)

Question referred

Where an in-house transport service is supplied by a travel agent within the framework of an all-inclusive price which is charged to a tourist for a tourist service supplied to him that is taxed under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) which lay down a special VAT scheme for travel agents, is that in-house transport service taxable — as a necessary element for the supply of that tourist service — at the standard rate of tax applicable to tourist services, or at the reduced rate of tax applicable to passenger transport services under Article 98 of that directive, in conjunction with point 5 of Annex III thereto?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.4 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.5 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.6 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.7 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.8 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.9 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.10 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.11 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.12 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.13 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.14 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.15 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.16 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.17 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.18 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.19 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.20 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:02-cv-72271-GCS ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/02 PageID.21 Page 18 of 18
###### 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.

#### § 154.9 Issuance of documents.

The Coast Guard issues an endorsed Certificate of Inspection to a U.S. flag vessel or an endorsed Certificate of Compliance to a foreign flag vessel that meets this part.