alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012151EN.01002902.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/29

---

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción v Commission

(Case T-341/11) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 151/48

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Doreste Hernández, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: M. Muñoz Pérez and J.M. Rodriguez Cârcamo, lawyers, thereafter by S. Centeno Huerta, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning the approval of the project for the construction of a port in Granadilla (Tenerife, Spain) supplied by the Spanish authorities to the Commission pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by Ecologistas en Acción-CODA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by Ecologistas en Acción-CODA.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BURTON CANFIELD, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-10195 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE (DE 19 

and 20) 

 This matter is scheduled for a hearing on January 8, 2016. On December 16, 

2015, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant filed motions to appear at the hearing by 

telephone. (DE 19 and 20.) Both indicate that round-trip travel to the hearing 

would be burdensome. Plaintiff’s counsel’s office is located in Bay City, 

Michigan, and Defendant’s counsel’s office is located in Boston, Massachusetts. 

Neither party objects to the others’ motion. 

 Although the Court generally believes that there is often a more meaningful 

discussion at oral argument when counsel appear in person, and therefore prefers to 

to avoid telephonic hearings (especially where counsel is in-state), for good cause 

shown and because neither party objects, both motions are GRANTED. (DE 19 

and 20.) However, if for any reason counsel become available to attend the 

2:15-cv-10195-APP Doc # 21 Filed 01/04/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 394
2

hearing in person, they need only file a notice on the docket by 8:00 a.m. on 

January 8, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

on January 4, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-10195-APP Doc # 21 Filed 01/04/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 395
#### § 169.117 OMB control numbers.

(a) *Purpose.* This section collects and displays the control numbers assigned to information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this subchapter by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The Coast Guard intends that this section comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507(f) which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of OMB for each approved agency information collection requirement.

(b) *Display.*

| 46 CFR part— | OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| § 169.111 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.201 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.205 | 1625-0002, 1625-0014, 1625-0018, 1625-0032, and 1625-0038 |
| § 169.211 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.213 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.215 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.217 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.218 | 1625-0002, 1625-0014, 1625-0018, 1625-0032, and 1625-0038 |
| § 169.219 | 1625-0002, 1625-0014, 1625-0018, 1625-0032, and 1625-0038 |
| § 169.233 | 1625-0032 |
| § 169.235 | 1625-0002 |
| § 169.305 | 1625-0038, 1625-0064 |
| § 169.509 | 1625-0035, 1625-0038 |
| § 169.807 | 1625-0001 |
| § 169.813 | 1625-0002, 1625-0014, 1625-0018, 1625-0032, and 1625-0038 |
| § 169.840 | 1625-0064 |
| § 169.841 | 1625-0002, 1625-0014, 1625-0018, 1625-0032, and 1625-0038 |
| § 169.857 | 1625-0002, 1625-0014, 1625-0018, 1625-0032, and 1625-0038. |

[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by CGD 88-072, 53 FR 34298, Sept. 6, 1988; CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41824, Sept. 11, 1992; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58350, Sept. 30, 2004]
§ 176.500 When required. ( a ) Vessels carrying more than 12 passengers on international voyages must undergo an inspection for certification each year as specified in § 176.404.
( b ) All other vessels must undergo an inspection for certification as specified in § 176.404 and annual inspection as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. ( 1 ) *Annual inspection.* Your vessel must undergo an annual inspection within the 3 months before or after each anniversary date. ( i ) You must contact the cognizant OCMI to schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No written application is required.
( ii ) The scope of the annual inspection is the same as the inspection for certification but in less detail unless the cognizant marine inspector finds deficiencies or determines that a major change has occurred since the last inspection. If deficiencies are found or a major change to the vessel has occurred, the marine inspector will conduct an inspection more detailed in scope to ensure that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your vessel passes the annual inspection, the marine inspector will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( iii ) If the annual inspection reveals deficiencies in your vessel's maintenance, you must make any or all repairs or improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
( iv ) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
§ 86.4 Assurance required. ( a ) *General.* Every application for Federal financial assistance for any education program or activity shall as condition of its approval contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient, satisfactory to the Director, that the education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which this part applies will be operated in compliance with this part. An assurance of compliance with this part shall not be satisfactory to the Director if the applicant or recipient to whom such assurance applies fails to commit itself to take whatever remedial action is necessary in accordance with § 86.3(a) to eliminate existing discrimination on the basis of sex or to eliminate the effects of past discrimination whether occurring prior or subsequent to the submission to the Director of such assurance.
( b ) *Duration of obligation.* ( 1 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide real property or structures thereon, such assurance shall obligate the recipient or, in the case of a subsequent transfer, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structures are used to provide an education program or activity.
( 2 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide personal property, such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
( 3 ) In all other cases such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended.
( c ) *Form.* The Director will specify the form of the assurances required by paragraph (a) of this section and the extent to which such assurances will be required of the applicant's or recipient's subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, or successors in interest.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
[40 FR 24137, June 4, 1975, as amended at 70 FR 24321, May 9, 2005]
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE ABATEMENT WORKERS 

REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NO. 207 HEALTH 

AND WELFARE FUND; TRUSTEES OF 

ABATEMENT WORKERS REGIONAL LOCAL 

UNION NO. 207 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION 

PENSION FUND; TRUSTEES OF THE 

ABATEMENT WORKERS NATIONAL 

VACATION FUND; TRUSTEES OF THE 

ABATEMENT WORKERS REGIONAL LOCAL 

UNION NO. 207 JOINT TRAINING FUND; and the 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT & 

FROST INSULATORS and ASBESTOS 

WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 207, 

 Case No. 14-CV-14549 

Plaintiffs, HON. ROBERT H. CLELAND 

v. 

D2 ABATEMENT, INC., a Michigan corporation, 

PREMIER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

a Michigan limited liability company, and DUANE 

JONES an individual, jointly and severally, 

Defendants.

 / 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER CAME before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for the Entry of a Default 

Judgment. The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that: 

1. Defendants D2 Abatement, Inc. and Duane Jones were served with process on 

December 17, 2014. 

2. Defendants did not file an answer or take any such action as may be permitted by law 

within twenty (20) days of service. 

3. Defendants are not an infants or incompetent persons, or engaged in the military 

service. 

2:14-cv-14549-RHC-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 49
2

4. An audit has revealed a liability owing to the Funds of $21,127.30. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs shall have judgment against 

Defendants D2 Abatement, Inc. and Duane Jones in the amount of $21,127.30. 

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter pending 

satisfaction of this judgment and/or compliance with any additional orders.

 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

 ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

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

and/or pro se parties on this date, October 6, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Lisa Wagner 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

 (313) 234-5522 

W:\FUNDS\ABAT207\LITIGATE\D2\Pleadings3\default judgment order.doc

2:14-cv-14549-RHC-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 50
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT INDEX

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT NUMBER           DESCRIPTION
------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                      <C>
21                       Subsidiaries of Affinity Technology Group, Inc.
23.1                     Consent of Scott McElveen LLP
23.2                     Consent of Ernst & Young LLP
</TABLE>


EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF AFFINITY TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         NAME                                 JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION                 PERCENT OWNED
<S>                                           <C>                                           <C>
Affinity Bank Technology Corporation                 Delaware, USA                               100%

Affinity Clearinghouse Corporation                   Delaware, USA                               100%

Affinity Credit Corporation                          Delaware, USA                               100%

Affinity Processing Corporation                      Delaware, USA                               100%

Affinity Mortgage Technology Corporation             Delaware, USA                               100%

decisioning.com, inc.                                Delaware, USA                               100%

Multi Financial Services, Inc.                       Delaware, USA                               100%
</TABLE>


                                       47
#### CHARLES G. COLE, PROSECUTOR, v. THOMAS J. DOWLING, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF ORANGE ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided November 7, 1929.

*984Before Justices Tbenchabd, Lloyd and Case.

For the prosecutor, *McCarter <& English.*

For the respondents, *William A. Calhoun*and *Daniel J. Brennan.*

Pee Cuexam.

Under the writ in this case the prosecutor seeks to review the action of the building inspector granting a permit to respondents Rudnevitz & Ruby to erect an apartment house on premises 664 Lincoln avenue, Orange. The prosecutor is the owner of premises located in the vicinity of the proposed structure and distant one hundred and ninety-eight feet therefrom. The status of the prosecutor in the case is challenged, but we deem it unnecessary to consider this question.

From the return it appears that the respondents made application for a permit for this construction in July, 1925, and upon refusal obtained a peremptory writ of *mandamus*from this court to compel the issuance of the permit. The writ was issued on June 4th, 1926, but, for some reason which does not appear, was not brought to the attention of respondents until February, 1927, when its mandate was complied with by the issuance of the permit. It is contended by the prosecutor that the writ had lost its force, and that the municipal authorities were not obliged to observe it. We think otherwise. The writ was in the nature of an execution and unless and until set aside or withdrawn by legal proceedings it was binding on the parties and could not be disregarded.

The writ will be dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

YVONNE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-14409

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, 

ANDRE TINSLEY, and DEBRA

BRADFORD,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on September 30, 2015 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

On August 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a report and

recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court (i) grant a motion to

dismiss filed by Defendants Detroit Medical Center, Andre Tinsley, and Debra

Bradford, and (ii) dismiss Plaintiff Yvonne Harris’s complaint in its entirety. No

objections have been filed to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has passed. 

Upon reviewing the R & R, the parties’ briefs in support of and opposition to

2:14-cv-14409-GER-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 09/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 305
Defendants’ underlying motion, and the record as a whole, the Court concurs in

the analysis of the Magistrate Judge and adopts the R & R in its entirety.

Accordingly,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate

Judge’s August 4, 2015 Report and Recommendation (docket #16) is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated

in the R & R, that Defendants’ January 13, 2015 motion to dismiss (docket #9) is

GRANTED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 30, 2015

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

and/or counsel of record on September 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

2

2:14-cv-14409-GER-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 09/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 306
§ 196.15-30 Emergency lighting and power systems. ( a ) Where fitted, it shall be the duty of the master to see that the emergency lighting and power systems are operated and inspected at least once in each week that the vessel is navigated to be assured that the system is in proper operating condition.
( b ) Internal combustion engine driven emergency generators shall be operated under load for at least 2 hours, at least once in each month that the vessel is navigated.
( c ) Storage batteries for emergency lighting and power systems shall be tested at least once in each 6-month period that the vessel is navigated to demonstrate the ability of the storage battery to supply the emergency loads for the specified period of time.
( d ) The date of the tests and the condition and performance of the apparatus shall be noted in the official logbook.
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-QSB for
the period ending March 31, 2007, 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)


May 15, 2007
# C_2011130EN.01001901.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/19

---

Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Kipré v Council

(Case T-124/11)

2011/C 130/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stéphane Kipré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.

Attey

Council

---
# C_2013164EN.01001601.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)

(Case T-284/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark METROINVEST - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Principle of non-discrimination - Right to a fair hearing)

2013/C 164/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, P. Craddock and B. Vanbrabant, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Berger, R. Kaase and J. C. Plate, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Case R 954/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

1

---
# C_2014339EN.01001701.xml

| 29.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/17

---

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2014 — BTL Diffusion v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (babyTOlove)

(Case T-518/11) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 339/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BTL Diffusion (St Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Berendes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Mellein and B. Beinert, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2011 (Case R 883/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH and BTL Diffusion.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
§ 184.402 Compasses. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section every vessel must be fitted with a suitable magnetic compass designed for marine use, to be mounted at the primary operating station.
( b ) The following vessels need not be fitted with a compass: ( 1 ) A vessel on a rivers route;
( 2 ) A non-self propelled vessel; and
( 3 ) A vessel operating on short restricted routes on lakes, bays, and sounds.
( c ) Except on a vessel limited to daytime operations, the compass must be illuminated.