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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

NANCY B. SCRINE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL NO.: 14-CV-14841-DT

HON. ROBERT H. CLELAND

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge

issued his report on January 26, 2016 recommending that this court deny defendant’s

motion for summary judgment, grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. No objections have

been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C); thus further appeal rights are waived.1

Having reviewed the file and the report, the court determines that the findings

and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for

purposes of this order.

 1 The failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the court from its duty to independently

review the motion. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,149 (1985).

2:14-cv-14841-RHC-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 625
ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED,

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED

for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 17, 2016

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

on this date, February 17, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:14-cv-14841-RHC-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 626
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.048-1 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) *Specifications and Standards.* This subpart makes reference to the following documents: ( 1 ) Military specification: MIL-B-2766—Batt, Fibrous Glass, Lifesaving Equipment.
( 2 ) Federal Specifications: CCC-C-700G—Cloth, Coated, Vinyl, Coated (Artificial Leather). CCC-C-426D—Cloth, Cotton Drill. L-P-375C—Plastic Film, Flexible, Vinyl Chloride.
( 3 ) Federal standard: No. 751—Stitches, Seams, and Stitchings.
( 4 ) Coast Guard specification: 164.003—Kapok, Processed.
( b ) *Plan.* The following plan, of the issue in effect on the date kapok or fibrous glass buoyant cushions are manufactured, form a part of this subpart: ( 1 ) Coast Guard Dwg. No. 160.048-1.
( c ) *Copies on File.* Copies of the specifications and plan referred to in this section shall be kept on file by the manufacturer, together with the approved plans and certificate of approval. The Coast Guard specification and plan may be obtained upon request from Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, or recognized laboratory. The Federal Specifications and the Federal Standard may be purchased from the Business Service Center, General Services Administration, Washington; DC 20407. The Military Specification may be obtained from the Military Specifications and Standards, Standardization Documents Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, *https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ .*
[CGFR 65-37, 30 FR 11583, Sept. 10, 1965, as amended by CGFR 70-143, 35 FR 19962, Dec. 30, 1970; CGD 78-012, 43 FR 27153, 27154, June 22, 1978; USCG-1999-6216, 64 FR 53227, Oct. 1, 1999; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60157, Sept. 30, 2013]
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF MAY 17 , 2016

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD 78749 Diane Accurso vs. Division of Employment Security

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

None
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2329 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2329

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
     certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2009

 Mr. Kissell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
     certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY 
              AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain expenses of 
elementary and secondary school teachers) is amended by striking ``or 
2009'' and inserting ``2009, 2010, or 2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7776

MAURICE ANTONIO BARNES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND; SEWALL SMITH, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-1279-CCB)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Antonio Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Barnes v. Maryland, No. CA-97-1279-CCB (D.

Md. Nov. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
§ 122.340 Vessels carrying vehicles. ( a ) Automobiles or other vehicles must be stowed in such a manner as to permit both passengers and crew to get out and away from the vehicles freely in the event of fire or other disaster. The decks, where necessary, must be distinctly marked with painted lines to indicate the vehicle runways and the aisle spaces.
( b ) The master shall take any necessary precautions to see that automobiles or other vehicles have their motors turned off and their emergency brakes set when the vessel is underway, and that the motors are not started until the vessel is secured to the landing. In addition, a vehicle at each end of a line of vehicles or next to a loading ramp must have its wheels securely blocked, while the vessel is being navigated.
( c ) The master shall have appropriate “NO SMOKING” signs posted and shall take all necessary precautions to prevent smoking or carrying of lighted or smoldering pipes, cigars, cigarettes, or similar items in the deck area assigned to automobiles or other vehicles.
( d ) The master shall, prior to getting underway, ensure that vehicles are properly distributed consistent with the guidance in the vessel's stability letter and Certificate of Inspection, if applicable.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAO RONG XU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70868

Agency No. A077-153-315

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Bao Rong Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo due process

FILED

MAR 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70868

claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reopen as

untimely because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the issuance of the

BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Xu failed to establish either

changed circumstances in China, see He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th

Cir. 2007) (change in personal circumstances does not establish changed

circumstances in the country of origin excusing untimely motion to reopen), or that

he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the time

limitation, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a

petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud, or error, and

exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). 

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Xu’s contention that his former

attorney’s performance caused him prejudice.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Sterling H. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of Natural Gas Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")") pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 14th day of January 2004.

| | /s/STERLING H. MCDONALDSterling H. McDonald Chief Financial
Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
# C_2012379EN.01002301.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)

(Case T-191/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Miura - Earlier national word and figurative marks MIURA - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Notification by ordinary mail - Rule 62(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

2012/C 379/39

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA (Sant’ Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: P. Kather, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka, agents)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez (Seville, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez and Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010 4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010 4);

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

1

---
#### John S. Harris, *Plaintiff, v.*Aaron Healey and others, *Defendants*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Gilbert, J., not sitting.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending December 17, 2005

|Filer                  | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                
|---------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|NORTHERN BANCORP, INC. | CIC           | Notice pursuant to the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978 by Joseph A. Riley who would become a member of a group of related family interests that currently owns greater than 25% of the voting shares of Northern Bancorp, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:             | Not available
|Federal Register:      | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,260                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,078                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,748                       0
<PP&E>                                           6,405                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,348)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,825                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,994                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          1                       0
<COMMON>                                            87                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,025                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,419                       0
<SALES>                                            282                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   282                       0
<CGS>                                              142                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      142                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,129                   2,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 146                     401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,199)                 (2,998)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,199)                 (2,998)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                      (4,225)                 (2,998)
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.54)                   (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)                   (.59)


</TABLE>
#### ESSEX AND HUDSON LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RELATOR, v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Decided October 16, 1929.

Before Gummeee, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodine.

Eor the relatoT, *McCarter & English.*

Eor the respondent, Edward *L. Katzenbach*and *Mark A. Sullivan.*

Pee Curiam.

The facts in this case are so closely similar to those in Cooper *v.*State Highway Commission, decided July 7th, 1929, that the writ must be denied for the reasons there stated.
§ 167.15-20 Inspections of nautical school ships. ( a ) At each annual inspection, or oftener if deemed necessary, the inspector will inspect the hull, boilers, machinery, equipment, and appliances generally for compliance with the regulations in this subpart and in addition will inspect and test certain specific items as specifically set forth in this part.
( b ) To renew a Certificate of Inspection, you must submit an application at least 30 days before the expiration of the vessel's current certificate.
[CGFR 51-11, 16 FR 3218, Apr. 12, 1951, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6507, Feb. 9, 2000]
§ 169.236 Inspection and testing required. ( a ) The provisions of NFPA 306, (incorporation by reference, see § 169.115) are used as a guide in conducting the inspections and issuing certificates required by this section.
( b ) Until an inspection has been made to determine that the operations can be undertaken safely, no alterations, repairs, or other operations involving riveting, welding, burning, or other fire-producing actions may be made— ( 1 ) Within or on the boundaries of fuel tanks; or
( 2 ) To pipelines, heating coils, pumps, fittings, or other appurtenances connected to fuel tanks.
( c ) Inspections must be conducted as follows: ( 1 ) In ports or places in the United States or its territories and possessions, the inspection must be made by a marine chemist certificated by the National Fire Protection Association; however, if the services of such certified marine chemist are not reasonably available, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, upon the recommendation of the vessel owner and his contractor on their representative, may authorize a person to inspect the particular vessel. If the inspection indicates that the operations can be undertaken with safety, a certificate setting forth this fact in writing must be issued by the certified marine chemist or the authorized person before the work is started. The certificate must include any requirements necessary to reasonably maintain safe conditions in the spaces certified throughout the operation, including any precautions necessary to eliminate or minimize hazards that may be present from protective coatings or residues from cargoes.
( 2 ) When not in a port or place in the United States or its territories and possessions, and when a marine chemist or a person authorized by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, is not reasonably available, the senior officer present shall conduct the inspection and enter the results of the inspection in the vessel's logbook.
( d ) It is the responsibility of the senior officer present to secure copies of certificates issued by the certified marine chemist or a person authorized by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. It is the responsibility of the senior officer present, insofar as the persons under his control are concerned, to maintain a safe condition on the vessel by full observance of all requirements listed by the marine chemist in the certificate.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48295, July 22, 2016]
Description of Natural Gas Futures Agreements



  
 Exhibit 10.ii.g.

  
 DESCRIPTION OF NATURAL GAS FUTURES AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MOSAIC COMPANY
AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND CARGILL, INCORPORATED 
  
 In connection with the business
combination consummated on October 22, 2004 in which IMC Global Inc. combined its businesses with the fertilizer businesses (Cargill Crop Nutrition) of Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill) to form the registrant, Cargill allocated to registrant or its
subsidiaries certain natural gas futures arrangements that related to the business of Cargill Crop Nutrition. The allocation was in the form of fixed price swaps between Cargill and registrant or its subsidiaries for the months, in the volumes and
for the prices indicated in the following table: 
  

						
	 Month

	  	MMBtu’s
of Gas

	  	Price Per
MMBtu


	 December-04
	  	40,000	  	$	4.670
	 January-05
	  	30,000	  	$	3.449
	 February-05
	  	30,000	  	$	3.944
	 March-05
	  	50,000	  	$	5.365
	 April-05
	  	30,000	  	$	4.665
	 May-05
	  	40,000	  	$	4.724
	 August-05
	  	10,000	  	$	3.765
	 November-05
	  	10,000	  	$	5.294
	 December-05
	  	10,000	  	$	5.199
	 January-06
	  	10,000	  	$	5.140
	 February-06
	  	10,000	  	$	5.192
	 March-06
	  	10,000	  	$	5.338