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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TRUSTEES OF THE IRON WORKERS 

LOCAL NO. 25 PENSION FUND, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-14896 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

MEAN ERECTORS, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

This matter having come before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of 

Default Judgment against MEAN ERECTORS, INC. and TODD D. CULVER, and the 

Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises; 

IT IS ORDERED that Default Judgment is hereby entered against Defendants 

MEAN ERECTORS, INC. and TODD D. CULVER in the amount of $80,431.07, 

allocated as follows: 

A) $78,580.27 representing fringe benefit contributions for the months of 

November, 2014, December, 2014, January, 2015 and February, 2015 based on items 

submitted by Defendants; 

B) Late payment liquidated damages in the amount of $97.44; 

C) Interest on the unpaid contributions in the amount of $209.93 pursuant to 

29 USC §1132(g)(2)(B); 

2:14-cv-14896-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 115
D) Interest on the unpaid contributions in the amount of $209.93 pursuant to 

29 USC §1132(g)(2)(C)(i); and 

E) Attorney fees and costs in the amount of $1,333.50, for the period through 

January, 2015. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MEAN ERECTORS, INC. open its books and 

records in order for Plaintiffs to conduct a complete audit to determine the amount of due 

and owing Plaintiff Funds in unpaid contributions. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may submit a Motion for Amended 

Judgment against MEAN ERECTORS, INC. and TODD D. CULVER to include an 

amount determined due pursuant to the audit as set forth above, as well as liquidated 

damages thereon, including accumulated interest, actual attorney fees, court costs, audit 

and other collection costs pursuant to 29 USC §1132(g)(2) and the Collective Bargaining 

Agreement, and any other amounts that become due during the pendency of this matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is enjoined from any further breach 

of the Collective Bargaining Agreement as same relates in any way to the payment of 

contributions to Plaintiffs; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jurisdiction of this matter be retained pending 

compliance with the Court’s orders. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 5, 2015 

2:14-cv-14896-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 116
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on June 5, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-14896-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 117
# C_2012058EN.01000501.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/5

---

Action brought on 14 December 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-641/11)

2012/C 58/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and L. Pignataro)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by retaining as a condition for priority in the selection of candidates at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano, as provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by retaining as a condition for priority in the selection of candidates at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano, as provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (1)

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains about the inclusion of a provision affording priority in the selection of candidates on the basis of at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano (Trentino Alto Adige), a provision which is contrary to the obligations imposed by Article 45 TFEU and also by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 492/2011. The Commission recalls that, according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the equal treatment rule laid down in Article 45 TFEU prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result (see, in particular, Case C-237/94 O’Flynn (1996) ECR I-2617, paragraph 17). That concerns, inter alia, a measure which draws a distinction on the basis of residence.

O’Flynn

In their reply to the reasoned opinion of 6 August 2010, the Italian authorities admitted that ‘(t)he residence clause contained in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976 could contain elements of indirect discrimination and therefore be contrary to Article 45 TFEU’ and that ‘(i)n order to resolve this problem, the text of the article will be amended without further ado’. The Commission has not hitherto received any information concerning the amendment in question and therefore concludes that the residence condition provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976 is still in force.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

1

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EDWARD MCKENZIE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-14856 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [15]; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13]; AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12] 

 On November 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge Morris issued a Report and 

Recommendation [15] on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] and 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [13]. Neither party has filed any 

objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

 The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation [15] 

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings 

and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, 

2:14-cv-14856-AJT-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/05/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 538
2 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [13] be 

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED.

 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [13] be 

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be DENIED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: February 5, 2016 Senior United States District Judge 

2:14-cv-14856-AJT-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/05/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 539
# C_2012089EN.01002403.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Afriqiyah Airways v Council

(Case T-436/11) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 89/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Afriqiyah Airways (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: B. Sarfati, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/300/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 85) in so far as it concerns the applicant

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. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 8K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Joyce, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                                            /s/  Charles Joyce
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Charles Joyce
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
March 17, 2005

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 5:15−cv−10141−JEL−APP

Hon. Judith E. Levy

Damon R Sims,

Defendant(s).

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Party in Default: Damon R Sims

 The default of the party named above for failure to plead or otherwise defend is entered.

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing notice was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By: s/ T McGovern 

Deputy Clerk

Dated: February 18, 2015

Case 5:15-cv-10141-JEL-APP ECF No. 6, PageID.14 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 1
§ 167.15-40 Integral fuel oil tank examinations—T/ALL. ( a ) Each fuel oil tank with at least one side integral to the vessel's hull and located within the hull (“integral fuel oil tank”) is subject to inspection as provided in this section. The owner or operator of the vessel shall have the tanks cleaned out and gas freed as necessary to permit internal examination of the tank or tanks designated by the marine inspector. The owner or operator shall arrange for an examination of the fuel tanks of each vessel during an internal structural examination at intervals not to exceed five years.
( b ) Integral non-double-bottom fuel oil tanks need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by external examination that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
( c ) Double-bottom fuel oil tanks on vessels less than 10 years of age need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by external examination that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
( d ) Double-bottom fuel oil tanks on vessels 10 years of age or older but less than 15 years of age need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by internal examination of at least one forward double-bottom fuel oil tank, and by external examination of all other double-bottom fuel oil tanks on the vessel, that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
( e ) All double-bottom fuel oil tanks on vessels 15 years of age or older need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by internal examination of at least one forward, one amidships, and one aft double-bottom fuel oil tank, and by external examination of all other double-bottom fuel oil tanks on the vessel, that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
[CGD 84-024, 52 FR 39655, Oct. 23, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 32232, Aug. 24, 1988]
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting.
 Dated:  February 1, 2010
    By:
    /s/   David Bruce HongDavid Bruce HongChief Executive Officer
§ 141.380 Emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB). ( a ) Each towing vessel operating on oceans, coastwise, limited coastwise, or beyond 3 nautical miles from shore upon the Great Lakes must carry a Category 1, 406 MHz satellite Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) that meets the requirements of 47 CFR part 80.
( b ) When the towing vessel is underway, the EPIRB must be stowed in its float-free bracket with the controls set for automatic activation and be mounted in a manner so that it will float free if the towing vessel sinks.
( c ) The name of the towing vessel must be marked or painted in clearly legible letters on each EPIRB, except on an EPIRB in an inflatable liferaft.
( d ) The owner or managing operator must maintain valid proof of registration.
Note to paragraph (d). Registration information can be found at *www.beaconregistration.noaa.gov/*.
|Skip to article
|---------------

|Figure 2.  Spread between interest rates on thirty-year and five-year Treasury bonds, 1977-2006.  Data plotted as a curve.  Units are percentage points.  As shown in the figure, since late 1982, longer-term rates (in this case, the average annual yield on thirty-year Treasury securities) have almost always exceeded shorter-term rates (in this case, the average annual yield on five-year Treasuries), a pattern illustrated by the positive difference in these rates over time.  The figure shows three principal "peaks"--in 1992 (spread of 1.96), 2003 (2.05), and 2004 (2.07).  In contrast, from 1977 to late 1982, the difference between the rates was frequently negative.  The figure shows two principal "troughs"--in 1980 (negative 1.13) and 1981 (negative 1.39).

Note: After March 2002, the spread is between twenty-year and five-year Treasury bonds.

Source:  Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, "FFIEC Rate Spread Calculator," www.ffiec.gov/ratespread/default.aspx.

Home | Publications and education resourcesAccessibility | Contact usLast update: February 5, 2009
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 91.17 Special benefits for children and the elderly.

If a recipient operating a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity, notwithstanding the provisions of § 91.13.

[47 FR 57858, Dec. 28, 1982, as amended at 70 FR 24322, May 9, 2005]
EXHIBIT 32.2

 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 8 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 Euro Group of Companies, Inc. (formerly
ICT Technologies, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Eracleous, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.


                                            /s/  Andrew Eracleous
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Andrew Eracleous
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2008



These certifications are being furnished pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act , shall not be deemed to be filed as part of the periodic
report described herein nor shall they be deemed filed by Euro Group of
Companies, inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has been
provided to Euro Group of Companies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 144.315 Weight and moment history requirements for a vessel with approved lightweight characteristics.

(a) A weight and moment history of changes to the vessel since approval of its lightweight characteristics (displacement, Longitudinal Center of Gravity (LCG) and Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG)) must be maintained. All weight modifications to the vessel (additions, removals, and relocations) including a calculation of the aggregate weight change (absolute total of all additions, removals, and relocations) must be recorded in the history, along with a description of the change(s), when and where accomplished, moment arms, etc. After each modification, the lightweight characteristics must be recalculated.

(b) When the aggregate weight change is more than 2 percent of the vessel's approved lightweight displacement, or the recalculated change in the vessel's lightweight LCG is more than 1 percent of the LBP, a deadweight survey must be performed to determine the vessel's current lightweight displacement and LCG. Use the following table to determine when the deadweight survey results or the vessel's aggregate weight change requires the vessel to undergo a specified stability test:

| If— | Then— |
| --- | --- |
| (1) The deadweight survey results are both within 1 percent of the recalculated lightweight displacement and within 1 percent LBP of the recalculated lightweight LCG, | the recalculated lightweight VCG can be accepted as accurate; |
| (2) The deadweight survey results do not meet the criteria of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, | the vessel must undergo a stability test in accordance with 46 CFR 170, subpart F; |
| (3) The aggregate weight change is more than 10 percent of the vessel's approved lightweight displacement, | the vessel must undergo a stability test in accordance with 46 CFR 170, subpart F. |

Table 144.315
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.174-15 Instructions. ( a ) Each thermal protective aid must have instructions for its donning and use in an emergency. The instructions must be in English and must not exceed 50 words. Illustrations must be used in addition to the words. The instructions must include advice as to whether to swim in the aid or discard it if the wearer is thrown into the water.
( b ) The instructions required by paragraph (a) of this section must be on the exterior of the storage case, printed on a waterproof card attached to the storage case, or printed on the thermal protective aid and visible through a transparent storage case. The instructions must also be available in 81 ⁄ 2 × 11 inch loose-leaf format for inclusion in the vessel's training manual.