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 ADJOURNING TRIAL SCHEDULE 

AND ADDRESSING FUTURE TRIAL SCHEDULE 

 On December 13, 2021, the Court set a March 2, 2022, trial date in this action. 

(See Order, ECF No. 796.) It also set a schedule for the briefing of motions in limine 

and for a Final Pre-Trial Conference. (See id.) 

 On December 20, 2021, counsel for both parties jointly contacted the Court 

by email and requested an adjournment of the scheduled trial date. Counsel told the 

Court that they could not proceed to trial on March 2, 2022, due to irreconcilable 

scheduling conflicts of critical expert witnesses and the parties’ lead trial counsels. 

The Court held a status conference with counsel to discuss the trial schedule 

on December 22, 2021. As discussed with counsel, the Court hereby ADJOURNS

the previously-scheduled dates for (1) the briefing of motions in limine, (2) the Final 

Pre-Trial Conference, and (3) the March 2, 2022, trial date. Trial will not proceed 

on March 2, 2022. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 799, PageID.56421 Filed 12/22/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

 As the Court explained to counsel on the record, the next available trial date 

will be assigned by an administrative committee of the Court. The Court will most 

likely be informed of that trial date in the first 60-to-90 days of 2022. As the Court 

stressed to counsel, it does not have any flexibility to pick a particular trial date for 

this matter (or any civil matter) that will be most convenient for the parties, 

witnesses, and counsel. As the Court further explained during the status conference, 

with respect to the next-assigned trial date, this case will proceed to trial on that date 

regardless of any scheduling conflicts that may exist with the parties’ counsel or 

witnesses. The parties should therefore have multiple lead trial counsels prepared 

to try the case on that date and be prepared to present witness testimony by video if 

witnesses have scheduling conflicts that prevent them from testifying live at trial. 

 As soon as the Court is informed of the next-available trial date, it will so 

inform counsel and schedule a video status conference to discuss a schedule for 

motions in limine and the Final Pre-Trial Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: December 22, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 799, PageID.56422 Filed 12/22/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on December 22, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 799, PageID.56423 Filed 12/22/21 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20901-20902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2074]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


In the Matter of Internetstudios.com, Inc., and World Cyberlinks 
Corp. File No. 500-1; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 24, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Internetstudios.com, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
World

[[Page 20902]]

Cyberlinks Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it 
filed a Form 10-KSB for the period ended July 31, 2002.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
companies, is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 24, 
2007, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 7, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-2074 Filed 4-24-07; 11:54 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
§ 171.001 Applicability. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, this part applies to passenger vessels inspected under subchapter K or H of this chapter, or a passenger vessel the stability of which is questioned by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI).
( b ) Specific sections of this part also apply to nautical school ships, sailing school vessels and oceanographic vessels. The applicable sections are listed in subparts C and D of part 173 of this chapter.
( c ) Specific sections of this part may also apply to a small passenger vessel inspected under subchapter T of this chapter. The specific sections are listed in subparts B and C of part 178 of this chapter and in subpart B of part 179 of this chapter.
( d ) Unless permitted otherwise, a passenger vessel constructed on or after January 1, 2009, and issued a SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate must meet the applicable requirements of IMO Res. MSC.216(82) (incorporated by reference, see § 171.012), instead of the requirements of this part. For the purposes of this section, the applicable requirements of IMO Res. MSC.216(82) are equivalent to the requirements of this part when applied to such vessels.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51017, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 83-005, 51 FR 923, Jan. 9, 1986; CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48052, Sept. 18, 1995; 60 FR 50120, Sept. 28, 1995; CGD 85-080, 61 FR 944, Jan. 10, 1996; USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78084, Dec. 14, 2010]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134355 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan KATHY J. GRUBER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134355 COA: 273248 WCAC: 05-000131 COLE’S CORNER RESTAURANT & CATERING, INC., and HOME OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 24, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 21.0
 
 Matria Healthcare, Inc., Subsidiaries
 
 March 1, 2004
 
 Name

Jurisdiction*Clinical-Management Systems, Inc.

GeorgiaDiabetes Acquisition, Inc.

GeorgiaGainor Medical Acquisition Company

GeorgiaDiabetes Management Solutions, Inc. (formerlyUSCI Healthcare Management Solutions, Inc.)

DelawareDiabetes Self Care, Inc.

VirginiaMatria Laboratories, Inc.

DelawareFacet Technologies Limited (formerly Gainor Medical

United KingdomEurope Limited)*Gainor Medical International, L.L.C.

GeorgiaMatria Holding GmbH

Germany (LLC)(65% held by Diabetes Acquisitions, Inc.,35% by Matria Healthcare, Inc.)eu-Medical GmbH

Germany (LLC)Dia Real GmbH & Co. KG

Germany (LLC)*Gainor Medical Direct, L.L.C.

Georgia*A.R. Medical Supplies, Inc.

FloridaFacet Technologies, LLC (formerly Gainor MedicalNorth America, L.L.C.)

GeorgiaMarketRing.com, Inc.

DelawareMatria of New York, Inc.

New YorkMatria Healthcare of Illinois, Inc.

GeorgiaMatria Healthcare Puerto Rico, Inc.

Puerto RicoMHI Insurance Ltd.

Vermont*National Reproductive Medical Centers, Inc.

Delaware*Infertility Mangement Services, Inc.

Delaware*PFCC Liquidation Corp. (formerly Pacific FertilityCenters of California, Inc.)

California*PFMG Liquidation Corp. (formerlyPacific Fertility Medical Group, Inc.)

California*PFPC Liquidation Corp. (formerly Pacific FertilityParenting Center, Inc.)

California*Q Liquidation Corp. (formerly Quality Diagnostic Services,Inc.)

DelawareQuality Oncology, Inc.

Delaware*Shared Care, Inc.

Georgia*Inactive Note: The above subsidiaries (except Matria Healthcare Puerto Rico, Inc., in which Matria owns a 51% interest) are directly or indirectly 100% owned by Matria Healthcare, Inc.
§ 194.20-3 Responsibility. ( a ) With the knowledge and approval of the master the senior member of the scientific party embarked may supervise the safety and operation of the chemical storerooms.
( b ) The chemical storeroom supervisor shall: ( 1 ) Maintain the highest standards of safe working conditions.
( 2 ) Provide safeguards against hazardous undertakings.
( 3 ) Educate personnel working in, and near, the storeroom to be alert for hazards.
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:




WHEREAS, Lucent Technologies Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the Company), proposes to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003; and




WHEREAS, the undersigned is a director of the
Company;




NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints Frank A. DAmelio, John A. Kritzmacher and Richard J. Rawson, and each of them, as attorneys-in-fact for and in the name,
place and stead of the undersigned, and in the capacity of the undersigned as a director of the Company, to execute the above referenced Form 10-K and
any amendments or supplements thereto, hereby giving and granting to said attorneys-in-fact, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing required and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each attorney-in-fact may or shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of
Attorney.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this Power of Attorney on December 9, 2003.







|By:   /s/ Robert E. DenhamName: Robert E. Denham     |  |  |  | By:   /s/ Edward E. HagenlockerName: Edward E. Hagenlocker
|---------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|By:   /s/ Daniel S. GoldinName: Daniel S. Goldin     |  |  |  | By:  
 /s/ Carla A. HillsName: Carla A. Hills             
|By:   /s/ Karl J. KrapekName: Karl J. Krapek         |  |  |  | By:   /s/ Richard C. LevinName: Richard C. Levin          
|By:   /s/ Patricia F. RussoName: Patricia F. Russo   |  |  |  | By:   /s/ Henry B. SchachtName: Henry B. Schacht          
|By:   /s/ Franklin A. ThomasName: Franklin A. Thomas |  |  |  | By:   /s/ Ronald A. WilliamsName: Ronald A. Williams      
|By:   /s/ John A. YoungName: John A. Young           |  |  |  |                                                           

---
# C_2012133EN.01002603.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/26

---

Order of the General Court of 19 March 2012 — Barthel and Others v Court of Justice

(Case T-398/11) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public Service - Officials - Remuneration - Refusal to grant the appellants an allowance for shiftwork - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Out of time - Appeal partly manifestly unfounded and partly manifestly inadmissible)

2012/C 133/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Yvette Barthel (Arlon, Belgium); Marianne Reiffers (Olm, Luxembourg); and Lieven Massez (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicants: Yvette

Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A. Placco, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 in Case F-59/10 Barthel and Others v Court of Justice [2011] II-0000, seeking the annulment of that order.

Barthel and Others

Court of Justice

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Yvette Barthel, Ms Marianne Reiffers and Mr Lieven Massez are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Yvette Barthel, Ms Marianne Reiffers and Mr Lieven Massez are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32



     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I,  Carey  G.  Birmingham,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly  Report  of  International  Test  Systems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal  quarter  ended  June  30,  2004  fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that
information  contained  in  such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of International Test
Systems,  Inc.

 Date: August 22, 2006

                                    By: /s/ Carey G. Birmingham
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Carey G. Birmingham,
                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                    Principal Accounting Officer

<PAGE>
Submitted on record and briefs November 17,1995,

affirmed January 3,

petition for review denied April 2, 1996 (323 Or 114)

#### TROY E. PATRICK, *Appellant, v.*STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent.*

(CV 93-0071; CA A82773)

909 P2d 215

David W. Knofler filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Leeson and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Martin v. Baldwin,*138 Or App 296, 906 P2d 868 (1995).
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Declan French, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Thinkpath Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Thinkpath Inc.


Date: May 19, 2006                        By: /s/ Declan French
                                              -----------------
                                          Name: Declan French
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer


I, Kelly Hankinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Thinkpath Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Thinkpath Inc.


Date: May 19, 2006                        By: /s/ Kelly Hankinson
                                              -------------------
                                          Name: Kelly Hankinson
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer


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

# Earmarks

**What is an Earmark?**

Earmarks           are funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs,           or grants where the purported congressional direction           (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication)           circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive           allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient,           or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to           manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities           pertaining to the funds allocation process.  

**What Does the Earmarks Database Show?**

    This database provides more information on earmarks in one place           than has ever been available through the Federal Government.           It is part of an effort to bring greater accountability and           transparency to Federal spending.   

    Browse:  

-  FY 2010 Appropriations Earmarks 
-  FY 2009 Appropriations Earmarks 
-  FY 2008 Appropriations Earmarks 
-  FY 2005 Appropriations Earmarks 
-                    FY 2005 Authorization Earmarks                 
-         Search Earmarks full text:                                       2010 Appropriations Tracking                2009 Appropriations Tracking                2008 Appropriations                2005 Appropriations                2005 Authorizations               

**Limitations of the Earmarks Database:**

          The recipient/beneficiary listed in the database may not represent           the final recipient/beneficiary of a particular earmark.           For example, if the Federal Government provides funds to a           specific recipient (e.g., a city), the recipient may forward           the funds or benefits to another entity.   

    The 2005 database was not designed, and cannot accurately be used,           to identify individual congressional sponsors of earmarks.           Congressional sponsors are included in the 2008 database as           identified by Congress. When earmarks do not have sponsors explanations are noted.   

| *Last Updated: 14-Jun-2011 (Changes from last update)* |
|--------------------------------------------------------|

|  |
|--|
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                           Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
               -------------------------------------------------
                                 (in thousands)
                                  (unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                         Fiscal Year or Period Ended
                                           --------------------------------------------------------
                                           December 31,   December 29,  December 28,  December 27,
                                               1995           1996          1997          1998
                                           -------------  ------------  ------------  -------------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>
 
Earnings (loss) before income taxes......      $(43,716)       $ 5,707       $ 3,571     $(203,706)
Add:  Total fixed charges deducted
    from earnings (loss).................         2,064          7,478         7,403        22,393
                                               --------        -------       -------     ---------
Earnings (loss) available for payment
    of fixed charges.....................      $(41,652)       $13,185       $10,974     $(181,313)
                                               ========        =======       =======     =========
 
Fixed Charges:
    Interest expense.....................      $  1,434        $ 6,950       $ 6,098     $  11,811
    Portion of operating lease payments
        deemed to be interest............           630            528         1,305        10,582
                                               --------        -------       -------     ---------
Total fixed charges......................      $  2,064        $ 7,478       $ 7,403     $  22,393
                                               ========        =======       =======     =========
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.......             -           1.76          1.48             -
                                               ========        =======       =======     =========
 
Deficiency of earnings available
    to cover fixed charges...............      $(43,716)                                 $(203,706)
                                               ========                                  =========
</TABLE>
# C_2013336EN.01002302.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/23

---

Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — Ada Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)

(Case T-562/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Cancellation of international registration - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 336/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke and D. Botis, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Ada Cosmetic GmbH (Kehl, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Börjes-Pestalozza, then by R. Douglas Morton and E. Kessler, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2011 (Case R 2121/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG and Ada Cosmetic GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012

1

---