alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JAJUAN OMAR GARDNER, 

Defendant. 

14-CR-20735-001

ORDER REQUIRING 

DEFENDANT TO 

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

On April 4, 2020, Defendant JaJuan Omar Gardner moved for 

release on home confinement and/or compassionate release in light of the 

COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 31. This motion was received by the Court 

on May 4, 2020. Thereafter, the Court appointed counsel to assist Mr. 

Gardner, and on June 22 and June 23, 2020, the Court received 

supplemental briefing both from Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Gardner’s 

appointed counsel. ECF Nos. 39, 41. 

 In reviewing the record and the merits of Mr. Gardner’s request, it 

appears that the record lacks any fully developed and detailed release 

plan to be followed should the motion be granted. Although Mr. Gardner 

states in his supplement that he would intend to reside with his wife, 

Sharon Robinson, and their three children, and grandchild at 2818 

Case 4:14-cr-20735-TGB-MJH ECF No. 42 filed 06/26/20 PageID.255 Page 1 of 3
2 

Aphaway, Flint, Michigan, 48507, ECF No. 41, PageID.192, the record 

does not contain any affidavit from Ms. Robinson confirming her 

agreement to this plan, or verifying this address and why the conditions 

of the household would be appropriate. 

 Defense counsel is therefore ORDERED to provide the Court with 

an appropriate release plan supported by an affidavit from the head-ofhousehold where Defendant would intend to reside within seven (7) days 

of the date of the entry of this Order. The release plan should address 

why the location would be an appropriate one for Defendant to be in light 

of his health conditions and should include in the affidavit an affirmation 

from the head of household of a commitment to act as third-party 

custodian for Defendant at that address if home confinement were to be 

permitted, as well as a description of the conditions of the location, the 

names of others who are living there, and why it would be an appropriate 

location in light of Defendant’s health conditions. Defendant may also 

submit any additional medical records or evidence of Defendant’s 

rehabilitative efforts in prison in support of such a release plan as well. 

 In ordering this supplemental information, the Court does not 

intend to suggest in any way how it may ultimately decide the outcome 

of Defendant’s motion, only that such information is material to its 

decision and is currently lacking. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:14-cr-20735-TGB-MJH ECF No. 42 filed 06/26/20 PageID.256 Page 2 of 3
3 

DATED: June 26, 2020. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cr-20735-TGB-MJH ECF No. 42 filed 06/26/20 PageID.257 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001070503
<NAME> EUROSOFT CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          48,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,054
<PP&E>                                         289,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 422,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          368,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,472
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,865
<SALES>                                        313,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               313,520
<CGS>                                          191,505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               964,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (846,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (33,050)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (846,717)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
#### § 167.01-15 Specifications for articles or materials.

Articles of equipment or materials used in the equipment or the construction of vessels, which conform to the specifications of the Navy or Coast Guard or their approved equivalent, may be accepted.
§ 84.7 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with this part.
( b ) *Adoption of grievance procedures.* A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by this part. Such procedures need not be established with respect to complaints from applicants for employment or from applicants for admission to postsecondary educational institutions.
# C_2011113EN.01002001.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/20

---

Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Ferrari v OHIM (PERLE’)

(Case T-104/11)

2011/C 113/39

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA (Trento, Italy) (represented by P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1249/2010-2 delivered on 8 December 2010 and notified on 17 December 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1249/2010-2 delivered on 8 December 2010 and notified on 17 December 2010.

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International figurative mark (No W 10510030) containing the word element ‘PERLE’’ for goods in Classes 3, 25 and 33 in respect of which the applicant has sought Community protection.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected in part the request for protection.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

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

§ 160.062-3 Materials, construction, workmanship, and performance requirements. ( a ) *General.* The materials, construction, workmanship, and performance requirements shall conform to the requirements of the specifications listed in § 160.062-1(a)(1) except as otherwise provided by this subpart. In addition, all metals and materials used in a hydraulic release must be compatible with each other so that the final assembly under conditions of use is not subject to such deleterious effects as galvanic corrosion, freezing, or buckling of moving parts, or loosening and tightening of joints due to differences in coefficients of thermal expansion. Galvanizing or other forms of metallic coating on the parts of a hydraulic release are not acceptable. The criteria for accepting any combination of materials shall be determined by testing or by the data stated in § 160.062-1(b).
( b ) *Buoyant load capacity.* A hydraulic release working in conjunction with its spring-tensioned gripe must demonstrate that it can release buoyant loads between the limits of 200 pounds and 3,750 pounds and within the range of depths specified by paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Release depth.* A hydraulic release shall automatically release the buoyant loads described in paragraph (b) of this section at depths between 5 feet to 15 feet prior to being tested for either the temperature or the corrosion resistance tests of 160.062-4(c)(2). After exposure to these temperature and corrosion tests, a hydraulic release shall release the buoyant loads of paragraph (b) of this section between the depths of 5 feet to 25 feet.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,758
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,580
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,033
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        238,130
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,274
<DEPOSITS>                                     208,097
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,748
<LONG-TERM>                                     30,410
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 287,274
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,248
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,218
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   668
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,134
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,538
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,675
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,459
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      463
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  17
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,265
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,265
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .035
<LOANS-NON>                                        129
<LOANS-PAST>                                       250
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   325
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    296
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   840
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       47
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,256
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,256
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            236
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report of ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H. Aasen, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ THOMAS H. AASEN                                       
|                     |  |  |  | Thomas H. Aasen Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# CE2010045EN.01010201.xml

| 23.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 45/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 45/102

---

Protection of the euro against counterfeiting *

P6_TA(2008)0588

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 December 2008 on the draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (14533/2008 — C6-0395/2008 — 2007/0192A(CNS))

(2010/C 45 E/24)

(Consultation procedure — renewed consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Council draft (14533/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (14533/2008),

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0525), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0525),

| — | having regard to its position of 17 June 2008 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position of 17 June 2008 (1),

1

| — | having regard to Article 123(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0395/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 123(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0395/2008),

| — | having regard to Rules 51, 43(1) and 55(3) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 51, 43(1) and 55(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0499/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0499/2008),

1.   Approves the Council draft;

2.   Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.   Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the draft substantially or replace it with another text;

4.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0280.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

KARA JO AIKENS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10058 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the order granting in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss entered on 

this date, 

 It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is granted in favor of Defendant and 

against Plaintiff. 

 It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: August 31, 2015 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on August 31, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager 

1:15-cv-10058-TLL-PTM Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 80
# C_2013156EN.01004101.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-506/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 156/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Abrar, then P. Lange, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Heitmann, M. Petersenn, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.137-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76705 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) Windows submitted for type approval must be tested for fire resistance under Annex 1, Part 3 of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.137-2). Windows must also meet the thermal radiation test supplement to fire resistance, as outlined in Appendix 1 of Part 3 of the FTP Code, and the hose stream test of paragraph 5 of Appendix A.1 of IMO Resolution A.754(18) (incorporated by reference, see § 164.137-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx .*
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as a window.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20796

BETH KRUEZER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-5073

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case was tried to a jury. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
§ 174.330 Jettisoning of spoil. ( a ) When doing the calculations required by § 174.310 for a hopper dredge with bottom doors, it may be assumed that the spoil is jettisoned immediately after damage and that the bottom doors remain open if: ( 1 ) The bottom doors are designed so that they may be fully opened from: ( i ) The closed position within two minutes even if the main power source is lost or the bottom door actuating mechanism is damaged; and
( ii ) The navigating bridge;
( 2 ) The discharge area through the bottom doors is equal to or greater than 30 percent of the maximum cross sectional area of the hopper measured in a plane parallel to the waterline; and
( 3 ) Asymmetrical jettisoning of the spoil is impossible.
( b ) When doing the calculations required by § 174.310 for a hopper dredge with a split hull, it may be assumed that the spoil is jettisoned immediately after damage if— ( 1 ) The hull is designed so that— ( i ) The complete separation is effected within two minutes even if the main power source is lost or the actuating means is damaged; and
( ii ) The actuating means can be operated from the navigating bridge;
( 2 ) It is shown to the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, either by calculations or by operational tests, that the hulls can separate sufficiently to allow the dredged material to dump without bridging; and
( 3 ) Asymmetrical jettisoning of the spoil is impossible.
#### Caroline Regney, *Respondent, v.*William H. Robinson, *Impleaded, Appellant*.

Judgment modified by striking out the award of costs and disbursements, and as modified affirmed, without costs of the appeal to either, party. Opinion by

Hardin, J.