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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS 

 On July 19, 2016, the Court held a hearing on two pending motions in this 

action: (1) Defendants’ motion for leave to take additional depositions (the 

“Motion for Leave”) (see ECF #107) and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to stay all 

proceedings pending inter partes review (the “Motion to Stay”) (see ECF #108.) 

 For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

1. The Motion for Leave is DENIED.

2. The Motion to Stay is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s 

ability to renew the motion when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the 

“PTAB”) decides whether to grant Plaintiff’s pending request for inter 

partes review. The parties shall promptly notify the Court once the 

PTAB issues its decision as to whether it will grant inter partes review, 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 130 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5932
2 

and the Court will schedule a telephonic status conference to set a 

briefing schedule for a renewed motion if one is necessary. 

Also before the Court are two preliminary injunction motions filed by 

Defendants on July 18, 2016: (1) a motion for preliminary injunction enjoining 

Plaintiff from seeking inter partes review with the PTAB (the “IPR Motion”) (see 

ECF #125) and (2) a motion for preliminary injunction enjoining Plaintiff’s use of 

Defendants’ intellectual property (the “IP Motion”) (see ECF #128). Plaintiff shall 

respond to the IPR Motion by no later than August 3, 2016. Defendants shall file 

a reply brief by no later than five days after Plaintiff files its response. Plaintiff 

shall respond to the IP Motion by no later than August 17, 2016. Defendants shall 

file a reply brief by no later than seven days after Plaintiff files its response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: July 20, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on July 20, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 130 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5933
# C_2011311EN.01002001.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/20

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Atlas Transport GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08 Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs): other party: Atlas Air Inc.

(Case C-406/11 P)

2011/C 311/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Atlas Transport GmbH (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Atlas Air Inc.

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08;

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1);

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs of both legal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs of both legal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, OHIM and the General Court infringed the third sentence of Article 59 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark (old version) which governs the obligation to state the grounds of appeal. By the contested decision, OHIM and the General Court also infringed Article 60 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark in conjunction also with Rule 20(7) of the Regulation implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark, as well as established legal principles of the Member States. The proceedings before OHIM should imperatively have been stayed, meaning that the time-limit for bringing the appeal has not yet expired.

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 30, 2006 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 04-1786 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. LAVAR HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 02 CR 1129 Joan B. Gottschall, Judge

.
O R D E R After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005); United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir. 2003), the district judge informed us that she would have i mposed the same sentence on Lavar Harris had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence is within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk , 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Harris contends that Mykytiukwas wrongly decided, but does not identify any basis under the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to question the reasonableness of his sentence. Our independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
```

[House Document 112-72]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - House Document 112-72

 
      CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979 
 WITH RESPECT TO IRAN, MUST CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND NOVEMBER 14, 2011

  November 10, 2011.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national 
emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its 
declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register 
and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the 
emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. 
In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal 
Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the 
national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in 
Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, is to continue in 
effect beyond November 14, 2011.
    Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, 
and the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated 
January 19, 1981, is still under way. For these reasons, I have 
determined that it is necessary to continue the national 
emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, 
beyond November 14, 2011.
                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, November 7, 2011.
                                 Notice

                              ----------                              

      Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

    On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the 
President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran, 
pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of 
the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Because 
our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and 
the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated 
January 19, 1981, is still under way, the national emergency 
declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond 
November 14, 2011. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of 
the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
continuing for 1 year this national emergency with respect to 
Iran.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and 
transmitted to the Congress.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, November 7, 2011.

                                  

```
#### EDWARD DELAHUNT and PETER V. CARROLL, Respondents, THE ÆTNA INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, Appellants.

*Insurance policy*— *clause terminating the risk if the voyage cannot he finished hy reason of ice*— construction *of it.*

Appeal froip a judgment, entered in favor of the plaintiff for $2,602.49, damages and costs, on the verdict of a jury at the Erie Circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

This action was brought on several certificates of insurance made by the defendant, in pursuance of an open policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs in this action, upon a quantity of oats, hoofs, horns and bones, being part of the cargo of the canal boat James Maloney, the property having been damaged by the sinking of the boat in the Hudson river at Albany. The cargo was insured at Buffalo, and started on its trip for New York. At a point about four miles west of Schenectady the boat was frozen in and the voyage stopped. Some days thereafter the canal was ordered closed by the canal commissioners of .the State, and the *669water was drawn off. Some two weeks thereafter, a thaw having taken place, and there being a number of loaded boats frozen in at that part of the canal, the canal was reopened, and the water again let in by the canal commissioners for the purpose of getting the boats so stopped through to their place of destination. This boat was then taken on through the canal and into the river at Troy, and down the river to Albany, where she was sunk, and the damage complained occurred.

•The policy of insurance, among other things, contained the following clause : “ It is understood that if, in consequence of ice, or the closing of navigation, the said voyage cannot be finished the same season, the risk to end at' the place and at the time the voyage is stopped, three days being given to discharge.”

The court at General Term said : “ The appellants claim* that by reason of this boat being stopped. on account of ice, and the closing of the canal as stated, that the risk under this policy had terminated, and, therefore, they were not liable. The correctness-of this claim depends upon the construction to be given to the clause of the policy quoted, ‘If in consequence of ice, or the closing of navigation, the said voyage cannot be finished the same season.’ Ice intervened and stopped the boat. The canal was formally closed to navigation, but by subsequent action of the canal commissioners it was reopened so that the voyage could be continued, and it was continued during the same season. In order to terminate the risk under this policy, there must be such an interference of ice, or such a closing of navigation, that the voyage-*cannot*be finished the same season. This was not the case, and we are of the opinion that the risk was not terminated.”

*Humphrey &*Lockwood, for the appellants.

*QooJc <& Fitzgerald*and *E. O.*Sprague, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Smith, P. J., and Hardin, J., concurred.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.
§ 193.05-15 Hand portable fire extinguishers and semiportable fire extinguishing systems. ( a ) Approved hand portable fire extinguishers and semiportable fire extinguishing systems shall be installed on all manned vessels as set forth in subpart 193.50.
# C_2014009EN.01001001.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (C-249/12), Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș (C-250/12)

(Joined Cases C-249/12 and C-250/12) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 73 and 78 - Immovable property transactions carried out by natural persons - Classification of those transactions as taxable - Determination of the VAT owing when the parties have made no provision for it at the time of conclusion of the contract - Question as to whether or not the vendor may recover the VAT from the purchaser - Consequences)

2014/C 9/14

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Corina-Hrisi Tulică (C-249/12), Călin Ion Plavoșin (C-250/12)

Applicants:

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (C-249/12), Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș (C-250/12)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxable amount — Immovable-property transactions carried out by natural persons not subject to VAT — Reclassification, by the national authorities, of those transactions as taxable transactions — Determination of the taxable amount, in the absence of any reference to VAT at the time when the contract was entered into — Deduction of the amount of VAT from the contract price or addition of that amount to the overall price paid by the purchaser

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 73 and 78 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the price of a good has been established by the parties without any reference to value added tax and the supplier of that good is the taxable person for the value added tax owing on the taxed transaction, in a case where the supplier is not able to recover from the purchaser the value added tax claimed by the tax authorities, the price agreed must be regarded as already including the value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Resource Advisory Committee, Custer, SD

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION:  Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463) and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 
determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Black Hills National 
Forest's Custer County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on 
Thursday, June 7, 2007 in Custer, South Dakota for a business meeting. 
The meeting is open to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting on June 7, 2007, will 
begin at 6 p.m. at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's office 
at 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, South Dakota. Agenda topics will include 
the discussion of potential projects.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Lloyd, Hell Canyon District 
Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, at 605-673-4853.

Michael D. Lloyd,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 07-2259 Filed 5-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below isbeing submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for thepurpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.

 

April 7, 2009

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

i.                              that this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.                           that information contained in the annualreport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations  of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Bruce N. Warner                                       |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Bruce  N. Warner                                          |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer |

#  

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

§ 160.077-13 Materials—Type I and Commercial Hybrid PFD. ( a ) *General.* All commercial hybrid PFD materials must meet § 160.077-11 and this section.
( b ) *Closures.* Each closure other than a zipper must have a minimum breaking strength of 1000 N (225 lbs). If a zipper is used to secure the PFD to the body, it must be used in combination with another closure that has a quick and positive means of locking.
( c ) *Retroreflective Material.* Each PFD must have at least 200 sq. cm. (31 sq. in.) of retroreflective material on its front side, at least 200 sq. cm. on its back side and at least 200 sq. cm. of material on each reversible side, if any. The material must be Type I material that is approved under Subpart 164.018 of this chapter. The material attached on each side must be divided equally between the upper quadrants of the side. The material, as attached, must not impair PFD performance.
[CGD 78-174, 50 FR 33928, Aug. 22, 1985, as amended by CGD 78-174, 60 FR 2487, Jan. 9, 1995]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15119-15120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1564]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[ No. USAF-2007-0003]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 
30, 2007.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: United States Air Force Academy 
Candidate Personal Data Record; USAFA Form 146; OMB Control Number 
0701-0064.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 8,500
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 8,500.
    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 4,250.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary to obtain 
data on candidate's background and aptitude in determining eligibility 
and selection to the Air Force Academy.
    Affected Public: Individuals of Households.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.

[[Page 15120]]

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulatons.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: March 23, 2007.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-1564 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
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 Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Rick Berry, 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:





1.    The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ RICK BERRYRick
      BerryChief
      Financial Officer




May 11,
2009





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanders Morris Harris
Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.