alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                    |   |                    |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                                    |   |                    |   |
| DATE:  March 31, 2011     | By:    | /s/ Cris Neely     |   |
|                                                    |   | Cris Neely              |   |
|                                                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                                    |
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM EDWARD LAVELY, 

 Petitioner, 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-11245 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

KEVIN LINDSEY, 

 Respondent. 

___________________________/ 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER AND THE 

RULE 5 MATERIALS WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE COURT’S ORDER 

 Petitioner’s habeas application was held in abeyance to permit 

petitioner to exhaust additional claims. On June 21, 2018, this Court 

granted the motion to lift the stay and gave petitioner ninety days to file an 

amended habeas petition, if he chose to do so. Respondent was given one 

hundred and twenty days from the date that the amended petition was filed, 

or the date that the period for filing an amended petition expired, whichever 

was later, to file an answer to the original and/or amended petitions. 

Petitioner never filed an amended petition. Respondent had one hundred 

and twenty days from the expiration of the 90-day period for filing an 

 
- 2 - 

amended petition to file an answer, which would have been no later than 

January 17, 2019. Respondent has not filed an answer to the original 

petition. 

 Delays by the state in responding to a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus “can, in and of themselves, prejudice a petitioner by creating a bar 

to a merits review of a prisoner’s constitutional claims.” Burgess v. Bell, 555 

F. Supp. 2d 855, 857 (E.D. Mich. 2008). Moreover, “Rapid adjudication of 

habeas petitions is important because...the writ of habeas corpus exists so 

that people wrongly detained may obtain freedom.” Wilkerson v. Jones, 211 

F. Supp. 2d 856, 860 (E.D. Mich. 2002). This Court has the discretion 

under the rules governing responses in habeas corpus cases to set a 

deadline for a response to petitioner’s habeas petition. Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. 

Supp. 2d 887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In light of the 

amount of time that has passed without an answer, respondent shall file an 

answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus within sixty (60) days of this 

order. Respondent is also ordered to provide this Court with the Rule 5 

materials at the time that it files its answer. See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F. 3d 

647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254. Petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the receipt of the 
- 3 - 

answer to file a reply brief, if he so chooses. See Rule 5(e) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Dated: March 18, 2019 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

March 18, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also 

on William Lavely #848603, G. Robert Cotton Correctional 

Facility, 3500 N. Elm Road, Jackson, MI 49201. 

s/Barbara Radke 

Deputy Clerk
# C_2011194EN.01001702.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/17

---

Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Caventa AG v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)

(Case T-224/11)

2011/C 194/28

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in Case R 1494/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in Case R 1494/2010-1;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Caventa AG.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BERG’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28 (Application No 7 115 009).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Christian Berg’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 25 and 35 (Community trade mark No 3 383 676), the opposition being directed against registration for goods in Classes 25 and 28.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (Consolidated Version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

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

§ 164.146-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Manufacturers that desire type approval should submit a written notice to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) describing the product and its intended uses. The Commandant will evaluate this information and notify the manufacturer of the product's suitability for testing. The manufacturer should then contract directly with an accepted independent laboratory to perform the required tests and inspections.
( b ) Upon completion of the required testing and inspections, the manufacturer must submit either a written request for type approval to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), United States Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, or electronically submit a request to *typeapproval@uscg.mil*. The request must indicate the name and address of the manufacturer, all product designations, and the address of all manufacturing facilities. The request must include a copy of the final fire test report and the production inspection procedures. From the information submitted, the Commandant determines whether or not the product is acceptable for type approval. If the product is determined to be acceptable, a type approval certificate valid for a 5-year period will be issued. If the product is not accepted, the manufacturer will be notified of the reasons why.
Irrevocable Waiver





EXHIBIT 1.03




 




Irrevocable Waiver




            Reference
is made to (i) the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock Subscription Agreement
between Moscow CableCom Corp. ("MOCC") and Columbus Nova Investments VIII Ltd.
("CN") dated August 26, 2004, as amended (the "Subscription Agreement"), (ii)
the Shareholders Agreement between CN and Moskovskaya Telecommunikatsionnaya
Corporatsiya ("COMCOR") dated August 26, 2004 (the "Shareholders Agreement"),
and (iii) the $28.5 million Facility Agreement by and among MOCC, ZAO
ComCor-TV, Columbus Nova DF Limited (formerly known as Amatola Enterprises
Limited) and other parties, as amended (the "Term Loan Agreement").  Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Subscription Agreement.




            For
and in receipt of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged by CN, effective as of the date immediately
prior to the Closing Date, CN hereby (i) irrevocably waives compliance with the
condition precedent to the Closing set forth in Section 6.03(e) of the
Subscription Agreement as a condition precedent to the Closing of the
Transactions (the "MFON Condition Precedent"), and (ii) confirms to MOCC that
CN has obtained the consent of COMCOR (notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 6(i) of the Shareholders Agreement to the contrary) to permit CN to
waive the MFON Condition Precedent..




            MOCC
may rely on this irrevocable waiver for the purpose of closing the Transactions
contemplated by the Subscription Agreement and the transactions contemplated by
the Term Loan Agreement.




                                                COLUMBUS
NOVA INVESTMENTS VIII LTD.




                                    


                                                By:__/s/
Andrew Intrater____________________


                                                     Name: Andrew Intrater

                                                     Title: Attorney-in-Fact




Date: December 30, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Christy Iafrate,

Plaintiff,

v.

Shermeta, Adams & Von Allmen, P.C.; and

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-10022-PJD-EAS

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT AND VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)

Christy Iafrate (“Plaintiff”), by Plaintiff’s attorney, hereby withdraws the complaint and

voluntarily dismisses this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Dated: February 13, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Sergei Lemberg_________

Sergei Lemberg, Esq.

LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.

A Connecticut Law Firm

1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor

Stamford, CT 06905

Telephone: (203) 653-2250

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Christy Iafrate

Case 2:15-cv-10022-PJD-EAS ECF No. 3 filed 02/13/15 PageID.9 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 13, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Notice of Withdrawal of Complaint and Voluntary Dismissal of Action was served electronically

by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Electronic Document Filing

System (ECF) and that the document is available on the ECF system.

By_/s/ Sergei Lemberg____

 Sergei Lemberg

Case 2:15-cv-10022-PJD-EAS ECF No. 3 filed 02/13/15 PageID.10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Jose' A. Infante, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Issuer, certify that:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: November 14, 2005


                                        /s/ Jose' A. Infante
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jose' A. Infante
                                        Chairman, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### § 201.25 Statement of interest.

The Administration, in its discretion, may call upon any practitioner for a full statement of the nature and extent of his interest in the subject matter presented by him before the Administration. Attorneys retained on a contingent fee basis shall file with the Administration a copy of the contract of employment.

[G.O. 41, 3d Rev., 29 FR 14475, Oct. 22, 1964; 29 FR 15374, Nov. 17, 1964, as amended at 60 FR 38735, July 28, 1995]
§ 14.407 Reports. ( a ) The owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual in charge of each oceanographic research vessel of 100 GRT or more must maintain a record of the employment, discharge, or termination of service of every merchant mariner in the crew. At least every 6 months, the person maintaining this record shall transmit it to the Coast Guard, either manually, in the form of a copy of a certificate of discharge, or electronically to the address provided in § 14.103 of this part.
( b ) The owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel must keep original shipping articles and a copy of each certificate of discharge ready for review by the Coast Guard or the concerned mariner upon request. The Coast Guard will no longer keep either original articles or copies of certificates of discharge; it will keep only electronic records of employment.
( c ) The master or individual in charge of the vessel must ensure that every entry made in the articles agrees with the corresponding entry made in a continuous discharge book, on a certificate of discharge, or in any other proof of sea service furnished to the mariner.
( d ) Each oceanographic company must keep all original articles and copies of all certificates of discharge for 3 years. After 3 years the company must prepare the original shipping articles in alphabetical order by vessel name and send to the address in § 14.103(a) of this part for storage at the Federal Records Center at Suitland, Maryland. The company may dispose of the copies of certificates of discharge. The Coast Guard will dispose of copies of certificates submitted manually, once the information is entered into its sea-service database and is validated.
( e ) Each oceanographic company that goes out of business or merges with another company must send all original articles to the address in § 14.103(a) within 30 days of the transaction.
( f ) Articles sent for storage to the address in § 14.103(a) of this part that are not prepared in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section may be returned to the company for correction.
[CGD 94-004, 61 FR 56637, Nov. 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78000, Dec. 24, 2013; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Pub. L. 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education will meet on May 16-17, 2007. On May 16, the session will be held in room C-7A at the VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. On May 17, the session will be held at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Building, 200 Maryland Avenue, NE., Washington, DC. Sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day, ending at 4:15 p.m. on May 16 and at 12 noon on May 17. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of education and training programs for veterans, servicepersons, reservists, and dependents of veterans under Chapters 30, 32, 35, and 36 of title 38, and Chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code.

On May 16, the agenda will include opening remarks and an overview by Mr. James Bombard, Committee Chair. In addition, this session will include discussion on proposed and new legislation, a total force GI Bill, chapter 1606 eligibility extension, on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs and the contract call center. oral statements from the public will be heard at 4 p.m. On May 17, the Committee will review and summarize issues discussed during the meeting.

Interested persons may file written statements with the Committee before the meeting, or within 10 days after the meeting, with mr. Salminio Garner, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Education Service (225B), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Salminio Garner or Mr. Robyn Noles at (202) 273-7187.

Dated: April 16, 2007.

By Direction of the Secretary

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-1947 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-07-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We have examined the accompanying management's assertion that, as of December
31, 1996, Bank One, Texas, N.A. maintained effective internal control over the
servicing of motor vehicle retail installment sale contracts for the Banc One
Auto Grantor Trust 1996-A.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control over the loan servicing
process, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of the
internal control, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control over the loan servicing process to future
periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the
policies and procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Bank One, Texas, N.A. maintained
effective internal control over the servicing of motor vehicle retail
installment sale contracts for the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1996-A as of
December 31, 1996, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based upon
criteria established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO) as described in Internal Control--Integrated
Framework.

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
----------------------------

Columbus, Ohio
March 24, 1997
<PAGE>   2
                       Assertion by Bank One, Texas, N.A.

Bank One, Texas, N.A. services the motor vehicle retail installment sale
contracts for the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1996-A. Bank One, Texas, N.A.
maintained effective internal control over the loan servicing for the Banc One
Auto Grantor Trust 1996-A as of December 31, 1996, based upon criteria
established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO) as described in Internal Control--Integrated Framework.

 /s/ Jeff Stewart            /s/ Barbara Rayball       /s/ Gregg Davis
-----------------            -------------------       ---------------
Jeff Stewart                 Vice President            Vice President
Divisional Controller        Manager Southern Region   Manager Indirect Lending
Southern Region Accounting   Retail Loan Servicing
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of 
AXENT Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (Filing Nos.333-08827, 333-08829 and 
333-08831) of our report, dated January 28, 1997, on our audits of the balance
sheets of AXENT Technologies, Inc., as of December 31, 1995 and December 31,
1996, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996 and the
related financial statement schedule, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

Washington, D.C.
March 26, 1997

                                                 Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
§ 195.07-90 Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968. ( a ) Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968, shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Existing arrangements, materials, installations, and facilities previously accepted or approved shall be considered satisfactory for the same service so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. If the service of the vessel is changed, the suitability of the equipment will be established by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( 2 ) Minor repairs, alterations and replacements may be permitted to the same standards as the original installations. However, all new installations, major alterations, or major replacements shall meet the applicable requirements in this subpart for new vessels.