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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 15-20019 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

D-1 TORANIO INGRAM 

D-2 INGRID THOMPSON 

D-3 EDDIE MAURICE-MATTHEW JONES 

Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF 

TAX RECORDS AND SEARCH WARRANT MATERIALS 

The parties have presented the Court with a joint motion for the entry of a 

protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d)(1) regarding the 

production of Tax Records and Search Warrant Materials. The Court finds that the 

requested relief is reasonable and will grant the motion. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government shall produce unredacted 

copies of the subject Tax Records and Search Warrant Materials to defendants 

Toranio Ingram, Ingrid Thompson, and Eddie Maurice-Matthew Jones 

(collectively, Athe defendants@) through their counsel of record in this proceeding. 

2:15-cr-20019-MFL-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 60
2 

It is further ORDERED that the subject Tax Records and Search Warrant 

Materials shall only be disclosed to and reviewed by the defendants, their 

respective counsel of record, investigators and experts retained by defense counsel 

and defense counsel=s support staff. Defense counsel or investigators working at 

the direction of counsel may utilize or refer to protected materials in the course of 

any interview of a prospective witness for the government or defense; however, 

counsel will maintain physical custody of those materials. No person shall provide 

or otherwise disseminate those materials or the information contained in those 

materials to any party not specifically described in this Order. Any unauthorized 

disclosure may constitute a violation of this Court=s Order. 

It is further ORDERED that any filings that include or refer to any of the 

subject Tax Records and Search Warrant Materials, which filings contain social 

security numbers, tax identification numbers, dates of birth, the names of 

individuals known to be minors, financial accounts or home addresses of parties or 

non-parties, shall be filed in compliance with Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure and the Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures of the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 

2:15-cr-20019-MFL-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 61
3 

It is further ORDERED that, subject to the motion cut-off date set by this 

Court, each defendant shall have the right to file a motion seeking to modify the 

terms of this Order at any time. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 3, 2015 

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

and/or counsel of record on February 3, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cr-20019-MFL-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 62
#### § 172.085 Hull type.

If a cargo listed in Table 151.05 of part 151 of this chapter is to be carried, the tank barge must be at least the hull type specified in Table 151.05 of this chapter for that cargo.
# C_2013026EN.01004801.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/48

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-616/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant - Reimbursement of avoidable costs - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

2013/C 26/95

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Del Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
**Subsidiaries      of Equicap, Inc.**

| Usunco                Automotive Limited                                                  | – | British                Virgin Islands |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------|
| (“Usunco”)                                                                    |    |                                  |
|                                                                                      |    |                                  |
| IBC                Automotive Products, Inc.                                              | – | California                            |
| (100%                subsidiary of Usunco)                                                |    |                                  |
|                                                                                      |    |                                  |
| Zhejiang                ZhongChai Machinery Co., Ltd.                                     | – | PRC                                   |
| (75%                subsidiary of Usunco)                                                 |    |                                  |
|                                                                                      |    |                                  |
| Zhejiang                Shengte Transmission Co., Ltd.                                    | – | PRC                                   |
| (100%                subsidiary of Zhejiang ZhongChai                Machinery Co., Ltd.) |    |                                  |

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7368

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GREGORY LEE TAYLOR, a/k/a G , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 2:18

- cr - 00035

- RGD

- RJK

- 3 ; 2:20

- cv - 00462

- RGD )

Submitted : January 2 0 , 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gregory Lee Taylor , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7368 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Gregory Lee T aylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. See Whiteside v. United States , 775 F.3d 180, 182

- 83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one

- year statute of limitati ons, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive pr ocedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the rec ord and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7368 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### § 131.820 Branch lines of fire-extinguishing system.

The valves of each branch line in the fire extinguishing system must be plainly and permanently marked, indicating the spaces served.
# Thomas Jefferson Day, 2007

On Thomas Jefferson Day, we commemorate the birthday of a monumental figure whose place in our Nation's history will always be cherished. Thomas Jefferson was a scholar, statesman, author, architect, and patriot, and today we celebrate his many accomplishments and lasting legacy.

Thomas Jefferson continues to capture our imagination because our country still echoes his ideals. In 1776, as a young lawyer from Virginia, he drafted the Declaration of Independence for the Continental Congress and articulated the American creed. From that document was born a Nation with a message of hope—that all men are created equal and meant to be free. The words Jefferson penned were a bold statement of revolutionary principles, and they have lifted the lives of millions in America and around the world.

As the third President of the United States, Jefferson worked to realize the vision he held for our young democracy. He signed legislation in 1802 that established the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, and began the great tradition of service academies that have contributed immensely to the defense of our freedom. He believed in the possibility of westward expansion, doubling the size of our Nation with the Louisiana Purchase and encouraging the Lewis and Clark Expedition to help open the unknown West for future development.

Thomas Jefferson served his fellow citizens in many other important roles, including Governor of Virginia, Secretary of State, and Ambassador to France. Yet, of his many accomplishments, Thomas Jefferson will always be remembered for his belief in liberty and in the ability of citizens to govern their own country and their own lives. As we celebrate his birthday, we are proud that the Nation he helped establish remains free, independent, and true to the ideals of our founding. Today, the United States of America is the world's foremost champion of liberty, moving forward with confidence and strength, and an example to the world of what free people can achieve.

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim April 13, 2007, as Thomas Jefferson Day. I encourage all citizens to join in celebrating the achievements of this extraordinary American, reflecting on his words, and learning more about his influence on our history and ideals.                          ( print page 19090)    

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

[FR Doc. 07-1911

Billing code 3195-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2738

___________ Carolyn Betton; Cytoys Durham; * Colette Howard; Jurlean Johnson; * Charlene King, * * Plaintiffs, * * Eric T. Tolen, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Appellant, * Eastern District of Missouri. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * St. Louis County, Missouri, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 21, 2010 Filed: December 30, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Eric Tolen appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his request for attorney fees in the matter of Betton v. St. Louis County , No. 4:05-cv-01455. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its disc retion in denying Tolen’s request. SeePeter v. Jax , 187 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 1999) (s tandard of review). Acco rdingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending January 28, 2006

|Filer                         | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|JOHN R TURNER HOLDING COMPANY | * 3A3       | Application by John R. Turner Holding Company, Jackson, KY to acquire Middleburg Bancorp, Inc., Middleburg, KY and its bank subsidiary, Farmers Deposit Bank, Middleburg, KY pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:02/16/2006Federal Register:02/24/2006
|Newspaper:                    | 02/16/2006 
|Federal Register:             | 02/24/2006 

## 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
**OFFI& &THE**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  

### AtJbTiN

AxMale 949 o?,the Code of CA.ml.ualPro0d~ ,288d8 a8 fou.o-rWonayaolleoted byanoffloor uponreforthwlthkpUdoverbytheoffloZm ool

### 1eet*tbo88im to the CamtyTrenaurerof tha propar 008nty 

### atta first 

### aadu0tingtherefrom the lqal fees and fmml88lon8 for oolleotine the munor" The stat&a do not qeolfleally prod~~d~ob 6ituation 88 prasent8d la your raQuMt, howwar, portmentha8reoentlyhelAthotwhareonly~parto~the ilne and ao8b are aolleotea, that the nmey ooll.eotea should (p flmt 

### to"'the poymait of the 0060 8nd t&o balenoe, 

### ~.~.t0~m~0r~or~~dtbatrbm~mis rmt anougheollaatMtopayrllof theao6ts,thoroasyaol1eetedshoiUbe~rated, ~buohaorse,o~oinoer ha8noprlorltyoraranother.



### mtf0lo1aa,~cob of c- Proadurea8 amemle a prorl d a8t hat.l.n aomlw havin g l poplll at b m of IpDre~W),000inhabi~tbJ~i6eoffhe~w6hallrreoelrs a 

### ru8of $t,SO to be id by the ooustty,Sor eaoh erlndaal aatlon tried and dirrposed 

### OSkr0r0 hirr. iwt1ol.1054 co&of CrlmhalProeedmnamd- 

## ti-a8in~parturokba~

and in tb Juutioe Court %ho trial fee~~**um0iPourmllAro ($41,. In~iawofthe~feeaboreproddd,~~a partoitho~,udbyr~thtt~J~tiaOifhe Pea00 18 paid by the oounty, it Ia our opinior, that the #8&o In quat&m aboriLa be pm rated on the bade of $oioO **to tha**  **county** 

### attorney; **$S.SO to**  

### the **eonstab& mb**  **$hOQ to**  **th8** aounty, **whlah flmmao**  **appr0xlmatel.y sixty-fw**  **amI a**  **fraatlon aant**  **on** 

### the dollar. **TJXI** 

### bounty **woula get**  

### ita **pro ratllpt3rtofthepaYmnt.**  **84vi8ea** that it **la the**  **opln ion**  **of** 

### thir, a 

### aonriotion **le bad**  **in**llr.lbmA.craven, 

### May8,1oS9, Pa&e5

theJustlaehtutan4onlya of the ooote are aolleetea, that sau mm oh kproraeabetweosl theofffoelwudtheeouat~intlte8ro er-- 

### utowhloheaahwouldhm~beuentltl to reesirs wmreflxmhaaellooatabeMeollaatetl.

Tmatlng thnt the $arqpBlag D your law-Y, wo remain Toau8 vary truly
A~ORUEZALOYTXAS
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.009-9 Procedure for approval. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76704 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) An application for approval of a material under this subpart must be sent to the 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.
( b ) The application is examined by the Coast Guard to determine the probability that the material meets the requirements for approval. The Coast Guard notifies the applicant of the results of the examination and of the sample size necessary for submission to the designated laboratory.
( c ) The designated laboratory notifies the applicant of the time and place for submission and testing of the sample.
( d ) The designated laboratory conducts the tests and measurements of the sample in accordance with the procedures in this subpart, prepares a test report, and sends four copies of the report to the Commandant (CG-ENG). The applicant may observe the test and measurements.
( e ) The Commandant sends a copy of the test report to the applicant and advises him whether the material is approved. If the material is approved, an approval certificate is sent to the applicant.
[CGD 74-129, 41 FR 41701, Sept. 23, 1976, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4783, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50467, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60162, Sept. 30, 2013]
§ 169.539 Type required. All personal flotation devices (PFDs) must be— ( a ) Approved under subpart 160.055, 160.002, or 160.005 of Subchapter Q (specification) of this chapter;
( b ) Approved specifically for sailing school vessel use under subpart 160.064 or 160.077 of Subchapter Q of this chapter; or
( c ) Approved under subparts 160.047, 160.052, or 160.060 of this chapter or approved under subpart 160.064 of this chapter if the vessel carries exposure suits or exposure PFDs, in accordance with § 169.551.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56500, Sept. 22, 2014]
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.

§ 153.350 Location of B/3 vent discharges. Except as prescribed in § 153.353, a B/3 venting system must discharge: ( a ) At the highest of the following points: ( 1 ) 6m (approx. 19.7 ft) above the weatherdeck.
( 2 ) B/3 above the weatherdeck.
( 3 ) 6m (approx. 19.7 ft) above a walkway, if the walkway is within a 6m (approx. 19.7 ft) horizontal radius from the vent discharge.
( b ) At least 15m (approx. 49.2 ft) from air intakes for, or openings into, accommodation and service spaces.
[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21208, May 17, 1982; 47 FR 27293, June 24, 1982]
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Krall, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pure Bioscience;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
         procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
         annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     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; and

     b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  October 29, 2003


/s/ Michael L. Krall
--------------------
Michael L. Krall
President/CEO


<PAGE>
# C_2014078EN.01001802.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)

(Case T-659/11) (1)

1

2014/C 78/36

Language of the case: German

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

1

---