alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011269EN.01003802.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/38

---

Appeal brought on 21 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 April 2011 in Case T-95/11: Longevity Health Products v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-378/11 P)

2011/C 269/79

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.;

| — | Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-95/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-95/11;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:

| — | The reasoning of the General Court is defective; |
| --- | --- |

—

The reasoning of the General Court is defective;

| — | The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark.

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO ADMIT RECORDED TELEPHONE CALL (ECF #84) 

 On March 5, 2016, Defendant Curtis Scott (“Scott”) filed a motion to admit 

portions of a recorded telephone call between Scott and Roland Hubbard (the 

“Motion to Admit”). (See ECF #84.) The Court heard oral argument on the 

Motion to Admit on March 7, 2016. 

 For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Motion to Admit (ECF #84) is DENIED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 8, 2016 

 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 86 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 735
2 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on March 8, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 86 Filed 03/08/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 736
#### § 96.18 Participation by faith-based organizations.

The funds provided under this part shall be administered in compliance with the standards set forth in part 87 (Equal Treatment for Faith-based Organizations) of this chapter.

[69 FR 42592, July 16, 2004]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN -- SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA ROUSSETY,

Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 -vs- Case No. 2:14-CV-11677-JCO-MJH

Hon. John Corbett O'Meara

Magistrate Judge: Michael J. Hluchaniuk

NATIONAL CREDITORS CONNECTIONS, INC.,

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,

Defendants.

Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment

Take notice that National Creditors Connections, Inc., has fully satisfied the

judgment entered by this Court on April 2, 2015 (Dkt. 39).

Respectfully Submitted,

By: s/ Julie A. Petrik (P47131)

LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC

Attorney For Patricia Roussety

24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206

Southfield, MI 48075

(248) 208-8864

Julie@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

Dated: July 29, 2015

 

Case 5:14-cv-11677-JCO-MJH ECF No. 44, PageID.175 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 2
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 29, 2015, I served this document on the following parties:

Party Manner Served

Randall Groendyk

Attorney for NCCI

Varnum, LLP

333 Bridge St., N.W.

Grand Rapids , MI 49501

Electronically via the CM/ECF System

Jonathan Engman

Fabrizio & Brook, P.C.

700 Tower Drive 

Troy, MI 48098

Electronically via the CM/ECF System

Respectfully Submitted,

By: s/ Julie A. Petrik (P47131)

LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC

Attorney For Patricia Roussety

24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206

Southfield, MI 48075

(248) 208-8864

Julie@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

Dated: July 29, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-11677-JCO-MJH ECF No. 44, PageID.176 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2
# C_2012089EN.01000202.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-595/11)

2012/C 89/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Steinel Vertrieb GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are

| (a) | Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 (1) of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China
  and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 (1) of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China

1

and

| (b) | Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 (2) of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines to be interpreted as meaning that they also cover the compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch imported by the claimant and described in greater detail in the order? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 (2) of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines to be interpreted as meaning that they also cover the compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch imported by the claimant and described in greater detail in the order?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 of 1 September 2006 (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.

2

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW FISHER,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-13516

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

CAROLYN COLVIN

Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

After having reviewed the administrative record in this case along 

with the parties’ briefs, the Court hereby ORDERS supplemental briefing on 

the issue of the ALJ’s failure to consider the medical opinion of Mr. Fisher’s 

treating physician, Dr. Michael Clay, located at R. 9-15, Tr. 1785-86, which 

limited Mr. Fisher to only part time work beginning in June 2012. Plaintiff’s 

brief is due ON OR BEFORE October 12, 2015. The Commissioner’s brief 

is due ON OR BEFORE October 26, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

2:14-cv-13516-LJM-EAS Doc # 18 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1923
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 28, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13516-LJM-EAS Doc # 18 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1924
##### 



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 Citizens First Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, C. William Landefeld, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/
    
    C. William LandefeldC. William LandefeldChief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2005
§ 147A.11 Person in charge of fumigation; before fumigation. ( a ) The person in charge of fumigation shall notify the person in charge of the vessel of: ( 1 ) The space that is to be fumigated;
( 2 ) The name, address, and emergency telephone number of the fumigation company;
( 3 ) The dates and times of fumigation;
( 4 ) The characteristics of the fumigant;
( 5 ) The spaces that are determined to be safe for occupancy paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( 6 ) The maximum allowable concentration of fumigant in spaces, if any, that are determined to be safe for occupancy under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( 7 ) The symptoms of exposure to the fumigant; and
( 8 ) Emergency first aid treatment for exposure to the fumigant.
( b ) The person in charge of fumigation shall ensure that: ( 1 ) A marine chemist or other qualified person who has knowledge of and experience in shipboard fumigation evaluates the vessel's construction and configuration and determines: ( i ) Which spaces, if any, are safe for occupancy during fumigation; and
( ii ) The intervals that inspections must be made under § 147A.21(a)(1);
( 2 ) No persons or domestic animals are in the space that is to be fumigated or the spaces that are designated as unsafe for occupancy under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( 3 ) There is proper and secure sealing to confine the fumigant to the space that is to be fumigated, including blanking off and sealing any ventilation ducts and smoke detectors;
( 4 ) The personal protection and fumigation detection equipment for the fumigant that is to be used is on board the vessel;
( 5 ) Warning signs are: ( i ) Posted upon all gangplanks, ladders, and other points of access to the vessel;
( ii ) Posted on all entrances to the spaces that are designated as unsafe for occupancy under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; and
( iii ) In accordance with 49 CFR 173.9(c) or section 8.10 of the *General Introduction of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.* The word “unit” on the warning sign may be replaced with “vessel,” “barge,” “hold,” or “space,” as appropriate.
( 6 ) Watchmen are stationed at all entrances to: ( i ) Spaces that are not determined to be safe for occupancy under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; or
( ii ) The vessel, if no spaces are determined to be safe for occupancy under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
[CGD 74-144, 39 FR 32998, Sept. 13, 1974; 39 FR 37771, Oct. 24, 19745; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50731, Sept. 27, 1996; CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51048, Sept. 30, 1997]
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter Loretto, Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Orient
  Petroleum Ltd. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report for the fiscal year ended July
        31, 2004 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
        and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Company.                                                   

| | By:    | /s/ Peter Loretto      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Peter Loretto          
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | June 24, 2005          

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on
  Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
  20-F 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 (the
  "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
  reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
  Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.

---
###### 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.

#### § 154.548 Cargo piping: Flow capacity.

Piping with an excess flow valve must have a vapor or liquid flow capacity that is greater than the rated closing flow under § 154.546.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES DENT, #214488,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14-CV-13272

v. HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

DAVID BERGH,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

his application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal concerning the Court’s September 13, 2017

opinion and order denying his habeas petition on the merits. The Court denied a certificate of

appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal when it denied the petition.

Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its prior ruling. A

motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon, either expressly or by

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

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

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

burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by

Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion and application.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: October 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, October 31, 2017, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2
#### § 176.840 Additional tests and inspections.

The cognizant OCMI may require that a vessel and its equipment undergo any additional test or inspection deemed reasonable and necessary to determine that the vessel and its equipment are suitable for the service in which they are to be employed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING 

ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 PENSION FUND, 

Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 14-14906 

v. HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

HAYES WASHED SAND & GRAVEL 

COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (DKT. 16) 

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment filed on July 1, 

2015. (Dkt. 16). Pursuant to the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ unopposed 

motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2015, (Dkt. 14), the Court entered a 

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs for unpaid contributions of $139,386.66. (Dkt. 15). 

The Court also indicated that the judgment would be amended to include the 

further mandates of § 1132(g)(2). This section provides that: 

In any action under this subchapter by a fiduciary for or on behalf 

of a plan to enforce section 1145 of this title in which a judgment 

in favor of the plan is awarded, the court shall award the plan 

 (A) the unpaid contributions, 

 (B) interest on the unpaid contributions, 

 (C) an amount equal to the greater of-- 

 (i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or 

 (ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in 

 an amount not in excess of 20 percent (or such higher 

 percentage as may be permitted under Federal or State 

4:14-cv-14906-TGB-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/21/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 121
2

 law) of the amount determined by the court under 

 subparagraph (A), 

 (D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be 

 paid by the defendant, and 

 (E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems 

 appropriate. 

(emphasis added). Plaintiffs seek to amend the judgment to recover a total sum of 

$170,615.07.1 Defendant failed to file a response or otherwise challenge Plaintiffs’ 

motion. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ supporting documentation, and in 

accordance with § 1132(g)(2)’s statutory mandate, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the 

judgment IS GRANTED.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2015 s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on July 21, 

2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties. 

 s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

 

1 This figure includes: (a) unpaid contributions of $139,386.66; (b) interest on the unpaid 

contributions of $10,660.69; (c) liquidated damages of $16,356.72; and (d) attorneys’ fees of $4,211. 

4:14-cv-14906-TGB-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/21/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 122
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Commission on Digestive Diseases, June 18, 2007, 9 a.m. to June 19, 2007, 12 p.m., Sheraton Crystal City, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway (Rt. 1), Grand Ballroom C, Arlington, VA 22202 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 28, 2007, 72 FR 14597.                

To elaborate on times and dates of the meeting: June 18, 2007 from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. and on June 19, 2007 from 9 a.m. until 12 noon. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: April 11, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1898 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 702.13 Intimidation of witnesses.

Witnesses at Commission proceedings are protected by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1505, which provide that whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
###### 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.

#### § 154.562 Cargo hose: Hydrostatic test.

Each cargo hose must pass a hydrostatic pressure test at ambient temperature of at least one and a half times its specified maximum working pressure but not more than two-fifths its bursting pressure.