alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         265,044
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,643,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                   227,210
<INVENTORY>                                    1,478,485
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,500,858
<PP&E>                                         3,891,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,908,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,511,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,999,352
<BONDS>                                        3,121,479
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (323,178)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,511,598
<SALES>                                        23,089,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,089,592
<CGS>                                          19,796,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,796,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,289,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               12,210
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             386,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                608,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            608,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   608,904
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
§ 120.330 Distribution panels and switchboards. ( a ) Each distribution panel and switchboard must be in as dry a location as practicable, adequately ventilated, and protected from falling debris and dripping or splashing water.
( b ) Each distribution panel or switchboard must be totally enclosed and of the dead front type.
( c ) Each switchboard must have nonconductive handrails.
( d ) Each switchboard must be fitted with a dripshield.
( e ) Distribution panels and switchboards that are accessible from the rear must be constructed to prevent a person from accidentally contacting energized parts.
( f ) Working space must be provided around all main distribution panels and switchboards of at least 610 millimeters (24 inches) in front of the switchboard, and at least 455 millimeters (18 inches) behind the switchboard. Rear access is prohibited when the working space behind the switchboard is less than 455 millimeters (18 inches).
( g ) Nonconducting mats or grating must be provided on the deck in front of each switchboard and, if accessible from the rear, on the deck in the rear of the switchboard.
( h ) All uninsulated current carrying parts must be mounted on noncombustible, nonabsorbent, high dielectric insulating material.
( i ) Equipment mounted on a hinged door of an enclosure must be constructed or shielded so that a person will not accidentally contact energized parts of the door mounted equipment when the door is open and the circuit energized.
( j ) In the design of control, interlock, or indicator circuit, the disconnect device and its connections, including each terminal block for terminating the vessel's wiring, must not have electrically unshielded or uninsulated surfaces.
( k ) Switchboards and distribution panels must be sized in accordance with § 111.30-19 in subchapter J of this chapter.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 928, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20556, May 7, 1996]
# C_2012065EN.01002302.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/23

---

Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-132/11)

2012/C 65/43

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request (i) to inform him in writing of the total number of working days of leave accrued in the years prior to 2005 and in the period from 2005 to 2010 to which he was entitled on the date on which he submitted his request and the number of working days leave to which he would be entitled by the end of 2010; (ii) to take all those days leave; and (iii) to notify him of any grounds on which those request may be refused.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission rejecting the claims set out in the request of 25 September 2010 which was sent to the appointing authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission rejecting the claims set out in the request of 25 September 2010 which was sent to the appointing authority;

| — | In so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for, or annul, Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011, received by the applicant on a date not before 6 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for, or annul, Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011, received by the applicant on a date not before 6 April 2011;

| — | Annul the decision issued by the Commission — whatever the form in which it was adopted — rejecting the claims set out in the complaint of 25 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision issued by the Commission — whatever the form in which it was adopted — rejecting the claims set out in the complaint of 25 April 2011;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
§ 142.220 Fire hazards to be minimized. Each towing vessel must be maintained and operated so as to minimize fire hazards and to ensure the following: ( a ) All bilges and void spaces are kept free from accumulation of combustible and flammable materials and liquids insofar as practicable.
( b ) Storage areas are kept free from accumulation of combustible and flammable materials insofar as practicable.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, 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 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.256 Trunks, domes, and openings of cargo tanks. ( a ) The hatch of a cargo tank must: ( 1 ) Be at the highest point of the tank; and
( 2 ) Open on or above the weatherdeck.
( b ) To be endorsed to carry a cargo requiring an independent cargo tank, a tank must have: ( 1 ) A trunk or dome at the uppermost part of the tank, extending above the weatherdeck;
( 2 ) Its hatch at the top of the trunk or dome; and
( 3 ) No openings below the weatherdeck.
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.1 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.2 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.3 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.4 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.5 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.6 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.7 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.8 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:14-cr-20568-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 05/03/13 PageID.9 Page 9 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TRACEY SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-13795 

v. District Judge David M. Lawson 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

THE FOOD BANK OF EASTERN 

MICHIGAN, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO SIGN AUTHORIZATION 

 On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for a telephonic conference. (DE 

74.) In her request, Plaintiff explained that Defendant’s counsel continued to 

request discovery information from her, despite the discovery cut-off date having 

passed. As support, she attached an email dated May 4, 2016 from Pam Orr at 

Axiom Requisition Copy Service, asking Plaintiff to sign and return authorizations 

to release records from the Medical Associates of Clio, M. Haitham Al-Midani, 

Flint Cardiovascular Consultants, and Soda Stream. (Id. at 4.) 

 I granted Plaintiff’s request and held a telephonic conference on this matter 

on May 20, 2016. During the call, Defendant’s counsel informed the Court that it 

2:14-cv-13795-DML-APP Doc # 75 Filed 05/20/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1500
2

was willing to forego obtaining authorizations on Plaintiff’s outstanding medical 

records, and only required the authorization related to Plaintiff’s former employer, 

Soda Stream. Defendant posited that it did not learn about Plaintiff’s employment 

with Soda Stream until she was deposed, and Plaintiff was unsure whether she 

provided the information about Soda Stream in her response to Defendant’s 

interrogatories. 

 Consistent with my ruling on October 16, 2015, in which I ordered Plaintiff 

to provide signed authorizations for the release of her employment records (DE 

32), Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to provide Defendant’s counsel with a signed 

authorization for the release of the Soda Stream records ON OR BEFORE MAY 

30, 2016. 

 In addition, the parties are reminded that, regardless of the discovery 

deadline, they have a continuing duty to supplement disclosures and responses 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), which provides as follows: 

(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.

 (1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 

 26(a)—or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for 

 production, or request for admission—must supplement or 

 correct its disclosure or response: 

 (A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some 

 material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete 

 or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective 

 information has not otherwise been made known to the 

2:14-cv-13795-DML-APP Doc # 75 Filed 05/20/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1501
3

 other parties during the discovery process or in writing; 

 or 

 (B) as ordered by the court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 20, 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 May 20, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:14-cv-13795-DML-APP Doc # 75 Filed 05/20/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1502
#### §§ 11.212-11.216 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CANDACE ANDERSON,

Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 -vs- Case No. 15-CV-10023

Hon. Linda V. Parker

Magistrate Judge: Mona K. Majzoub

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

STIPULATED ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Having been advised by the stipulation of the parties below, it is ordered that

the Plaintiff Candace Anderson’s claims against Equifax Information Services, LLC

are dismissed with prejudice and without costs, sanctions, or attorney fees to any

party.

The court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the settlement in this

matter.

SO ORDERED.

S/ Linda V. Parker 

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 25, 2015

Case 4:15-cv-10023-LVP-MKM ECF No. 31 filed 09/25/15 PageID.139 Page 1 of 2
Stipulated To By:

s/Amanda M. Longendyke

Amanda M. Longendyky (P-77777)

Ian B. Lyngklip (P-47173)

LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC

Attorney For Candace Anderson

24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206

Southfield, MI 48075

PH: (248) 208-8864

Amanda@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

Ian@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

s/ By Consent Meryl Roper

Meryl Roper 

King & Spalding LLP

Attorney for Equifax Information

Services, LLC

1180 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30309

PH: (404) 572-4600

mroper@kslaw.com

Case 4:15-cv-10023-LVP-MKM ECF No. 31 filed 09/25/15 PageID.140 Page 2 of 2
# C_2014039EN.01002702.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/27

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Simpson v Council

(Case F-142/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Promotion - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he passed a competition for grade AD 9 - Equal treatment)

2014/C 39/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD9 after he passed competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Simpson. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Simpson.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2013, p. 26.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-26517, 333-34652 and 333-51133 on Form S-3, and Nos. 333-61724, 333-59084,
333-14863, 333-61723, 333-49091 and 333-49922 on Form S-8 of Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. (a Bermuda company) of our report dated March 27, 2001
(March 26, 2002 as to the 6(th) paragraph of Note 8 and Note 17) with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Globalstar, L.P. as of December 31,
2000 and the related statements of operations, partners' (deficiency) and cash
flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2000, appearing
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. for the
year ended December 31, 2001.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
March 26, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.048-8 Recognized laboratory. ( a ) A manufacturer seeking Coast Guard approval of a product under this subpart shall follow the approval procedures of subpart 159.005 of this chapter, and shall apply for approval directly to a recognized independent laboratory. The following laboratories are recognized under § 159.010-7 of this part, to perform testing and approval functions under this subpart: Underwriters Laboratories, 12 Laboratory Drive, P.O. Box 13995, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995, (919) 549-1400.
( b ) Production oversight must be performed by the same laboratory that performs the approval tests unless, as determined by the Commandant, the employees of the laboratory performed production oversight receive training and support equal to that of the laboratory that performed the approval testing.
[CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13930, Mar. 28, 1996]
§ 174.355 Definitions. *New ship* means a ship: ( 1 ) For which the building contract is placed on or after February 1, 1992; or
( 2 ) In the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction on or after August 1, 1992; or
( 3 ) The delivery of which is on or after February 1, 1997; or
( 4 ) For which application for reflagging is made on or after February 1, 1997; or
( 5 ) Which has undergone a major conversion: ( i ) For which the contract is placed on or after February 1, 1992; or
( ii ) In the absence of a contract, the construction work of which is begun on or after August 1, 1992; or
( iii ) Which is completed on or after February 1, 1997.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, 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 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.1000 Special operating requirements for cargoes reactive with water. When Table 1 refers to this section, the master must ensure that the cargo: ( a ) Is carried only in a containment system completely isolated from any systems containing water, such as slop tanks, ballast tanks, cargo tanks containing slops or ballast, their vent lines or piping; and
( b ) Is separated by double walls, such as cofferdams and piping tunnels, from any system containing water, as for example those described in paragraph (a) of this section.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Lucent Technologies Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-01223), and Forms S-8 (File
No.'s 333-45253, 333-64525, 333-46589, 333-52799, 333-01223, 333-52805,
333-56133, 333-08775, 333-37041, 333-33943, 333-18975, 333-18977, 333-08783, and
333-42475), of our reports dated October 21, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Lucent
Technologies Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1998 and 1997 and for the
year ended September 30, 1998 and 1997 and the nine-month period ended 
September 30, 1996, which reports are included in this Form 10-K.


                                         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



New York, New York
December 22, 1998
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-47 Service.

The waters upon which a vessel may be operated as endorsed upon the certificate of inspection.
### 1' ii l

~~ir%

.

March 11, 2005 Mr . Robert Varney EPA- New

England Region 1 Congress St, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2-23 Dear Mr. Varney, In accordance with Title 1, section 112(1) of the Clean Air Act as amended on November 15, 1990, I am forwarding a revised application for delegation of the authorityto regulate halogenated solvent cleaning operations. RI previously submitted an application for delegation on January 8, 2001 . We have revised the submittal and addressed all comments from your office and arerequesting that Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulation No . 36, entitled, "Control ofEmissions from Organic Solvent Cleaning" be substituted for the National Emission Standard for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning. The state rule is basedon the NESHAP for Halogenated Cleaning Operations. Any areas of the state rule, which differ, are described in the application with explanation . 

### RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767 TDD401-222-4462

Should you need any further information, please contact Barbara Morin, ofthe Office ofAir Resources, at (401) 222-2808 ext. 7012. Sincerely,

.. Stephen Majkut, Chief Office of Air Resources

~~ ." 30%post-consumer fiber
**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2012 —
Greece v Commission

(Case C-497/11 P)**

Appeal – ERDF – Reduction in financing – Objective 1 operational programme (1994-1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece – Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties – Professional secrecy – Rate of financial correction – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review

1.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear
sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first
para.) (see paras 35, 36)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1),
second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 46)*

3.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Ground submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1),
second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 68)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2001 in Case T-81/09 | Greece | v | Commission | , by which the General Court annulled in part an action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted in respect of the Objective 1 operational programme (1994-1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |