alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008029EN.01000101.xml

| 1.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 28 January 2008

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Suomen Pankki

(ECB/2008/1)

(2008/C 29/01)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB's Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB's Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | The mandate of Suomen Pankki's current external auditors will end after the audit for the financial year 2007. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The mandate of Suomen Pankki's current external auditors will end after the audit for the financial year 2007. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2008.

| (3) | Suomen Pankki has selected KPMG Oy Ab as its external auditors for the financial years 2008 to 2012, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Suomen Pankki has selected KPMG Oy Ab as its external auditors for the financial years 2008 to 2012,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that KPMG Oy Ab should be appointed as the external auditors of Suomen Pankki for the financial years 2008 to 2012.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 28 January 2008.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---
# C_2011298EN.01002402.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/24

---

Action brought on 9 August 2011 — Catinis v Commission

(Case T-447/11)

2011/C 298/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lian Catinis (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision as far as the non-closure of the investigation and the rejection of access to the applicant's personal file are concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision as far as the non-closure of the investigation and the rejection of access to the applicant's personal file are concerned; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies primarily on the plea of breach of law, as well as the duty to state reasons in support of the decision to continue the investigation beyond any reasonable time and not to have it closed.

Further, the applicant relies on the plea of breach of the duty to state reasons in support of the decision not to allow access to the investigation file.

Lastly, the applicant alleges breaches of fundamental rights and general principles of law, in particular of the principle of good administration, presumption of innocence and right of defence.

---
# C_2010128EN.01014801.xml

| 18.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/148

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive .../.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of [...] on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road’

(codified version)

COM(2009) 446 final – 2009/0123 (COD)

(2010/C 128/29)

On 29 September 2009, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive .../.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of [...] on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (codified version)

Proposal for a Directive .../.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of [...] on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (codified version)

COM(2009) 446 final - 2009/0123 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it unanimously decided, at its 457th plenary session of 4 and 5 November 2009 (meeting of 4 November 2009), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 4 November 2009.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1042]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Evidence

AGENCY: Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of 
the United States.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a two 
day meeting. The meeting will be open to the public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: April 12-13, 2007.
    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Inn at Rancho Santa Fe, 5951 Linea Del Cielo, Rancho 
Santa Fe, CA 92067.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 07-1042 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
#### § 182.330 Pressure vessels.

All unfired pressure vessels must be installed to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI. The design, construction, and original testing of such unfired pressure vessels must meet the applicable requirements of subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter.
Order entered November 15, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00504

- CV

CARLETTA GUILLORY, E T AL., Appellant s

V.

WILLIAM E. DIETRICH, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 94304

- CC2



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ November 13, 2018 unopposed motion for an extension of

time to file a reply brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to Dece mber 14, 2018

.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending December 24, 2005

|Filer                           | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. | * 3A1         | First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc., Farmington, Connecticut to become a bank holding company in connection with the reorganization of Farmington Savings Bank, Farmington, Connecticut into the mutual bank holding company structure.                       | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                      | Not available
|Federal Register:               | Not available
|NORTHERN BANCORP, INC.          | CIC           | Notice pursuant to the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978 by Joseph A. Riley who would become a member of a group of related family interests that currently owns greater than 25% of the voting shares of Northern Bancorp, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:01/03/2006   
|Newspaper:                      | Not available
|Federal Register:               | 01/03/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SUSAN LARSEN-HEISE, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 14-14711 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 Magistrate Judge Whalen 

 -vsTARGET CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF CAUSE 

NOW COME THE PARTIES, by and through their respective counsel, and hereby 

stipulate and agree that the above captioned cause shall be, and hereby is, dismissed with 

prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to any party. 

Mike Morse Law Firm 

 /s/ Jennifer G. Damico 

By:_______________________ 

JENNIFER G. DAMICO (P51403) 

Mike Morse Law Firm 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

24901 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 700 

Southfield, MI 48075-1816 

(248) 350-9050/fax: (855) 242-6662 

jdamico@855mikewins.com

jpittman@855mikewins.com

Law Office of Mark D. Willmarth 

 /s/ Mark D. Willmarth 

By:__________________________ 

MARK D. WILLMARTH (P27967) 

Law Office of Mark D. Willmarth 

Attorneys for Defendant Target 

503 S. Saginaw Street, Ste. 1000 

Flint, MI 48502 

(810) 600-4239/Fax: (810) 232-1079 

mwillmarthlaw@yahoo.com

Case 2:14-cv-14711-GAD-RSW ECF No. 26, PageID.129 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SUSAN LARSEN-HEISE, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 14-14711 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 Magistrate Judge Whalen 

 -vsTARGET CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF CAUSE 

 THE COURT, upon the reading and filing of the foregoing stipulation of the parties and 

being advised in the premises; 

 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 This is a final order and closes the case. 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Dated: December 28, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-14711-GAD-RSW ECF No. 26, PageID.130 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL FERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:99-cr-00056-1; 5:02-cv-00081)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miguel Angel Fernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Angel Fernandez seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fernandez has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Fernandez’s notice of appeal

and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Fernandez’s claims do not satisfy either of these

criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive

§ 2255 motion. 

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.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.70 Dangerous cargo manifest; general. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and in § 148.72 of this part, each vessel transporting materials listed in Table 148.10 of this part must have a dangerous cargo manifest on board.
( b ) This document must be kept in a designated holder on or near the vessel's bridge. When required for an unmanned barge, the document must be on board the tug or towing vessel.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.135-21 Operation and maintenance instructions. ( a ) Each lifeboat must have operation and maintenance instructions that— ( 1 ) Follow the general format and content specified in MSC.1 Circ. 1205 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.135-5 of this subpart); and
( 2 ) Include a checklist for use in monthly, external visual inspections of the lifeboat.
( b ) The lifeboat manufacturer must make the manual required by paragraph (a) of this section available in English to purchasers of a lifeboat approved by the Coast Guard.
( c ) The operation and maintenance instructions required by paragraph (a) of this section may be combined with similar material for survival craft and rescue boats, and their launching systems.
# C_2012331EN.01002201.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit)

(Case T-220/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark f@ir Credit - Earlier Community figurative mark FERCREDIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, H. Lindner and D. Terheggen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: R. Manea and G. Schneider, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Petrocchi, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina and R. Cartella, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 719/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA and TeamBank AG Nürnberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | TeamBank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TeamBank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27110; Airspace Docket No. 07-AGL-1]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Peru, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule which revises Class E airspace at Peru, IL.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 10, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT 
Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329-2522.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 26, 
2007 (72 FR 8266). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedures 
for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be 
no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public 
that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written 
adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an 
adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the 
regulation would become effective on May 10, 2007. No adverse comments 
were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final 
rule will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Forth Worth, Texas, on March 21, 2007.
Ronnie L. Uhlenhaker,
Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.
[FR Doc. 07-1803 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY HINTON, #646238,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 2:15-CV-10687

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

ROBERT NAPEL,

Respondent.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S LETTER REQUEST

TO REMOVE CASE FROM LEXIS NEXIS

Michigan prisoner Corey Hinton (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court

convictions, which the Court denied on March 27, 2018. The United States

Court of Appeals recently denied a certificate of appealability. The matter is

before the Court on Petitioner’s letter request seeking the removal of his case

from the Lexis Nexis database. In support of his request, Petitioner states that

he is receiving threats from incarcerated members of the victim’s family and that

he is being called a snitch and other derogatory names by fellow inmates.

Petitioner’s request must be denied. First, there is a strong presumption

in favor of public access to judicial filings and documents. See Nixon v. Warner
Communication, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Only the most compelling

reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Knoxville

News–Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Second, while the

Court has authority to seal its own records upon a proper showing of necessity,

it has no authority to require that legal publication services remove public

information from their databases. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

request.

Should Petitioner wish to contact the legal publication services directly, he

may do so at the following addresses:

1) Lexis Nexis

Attn: Legal Data Collection/Source Acquisition

9393 Springboro Pike

Miamisburg, OH 45342

2) Thomson Reuters

Attn: Editorial Operations, Judicial Content

Cases Publishing Center 

610 Opperman Drive 

Eagan, MN 55123

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: July 27, 2018

2
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel

of record on July 27, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Ford Motor Company, 

 Plaintiff/ 

 Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy 

Software, Inc., Versata Development 

Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc., 

 Defendants/ 

 Counter-Plaintiffs.

Case No. 15-10628-MFL-EAS 

(consolidated with Case No. 15-cv-11624) 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER GRANTING VERSATA’S MOTION TO REDACT TRANSCRIPT 

Pending before the court is Plaintiff Versata Software, Inc.’s Motion to Redact 

the August 4, 2022 Motions Hearing Transcript (Dkt. 867). Having fully considered 

the matter, the Court GRANTS the motion in light of the nature of the confidential 

information at issue. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 1, 2022 

 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 895, PageID.59638 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 2
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on September 1, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 895, PageID.59639 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2