alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending July 1, 2006

|Filer                                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                                  
|--------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|BOSTON PRIVATE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. | 4c8            | Section 4(c)(8) notification by Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, MA to acquire a 10% additional interest in Bingham, Osborn & Scarborough LLC, San Francisco, CA. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                       | Not applicable

## 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
# C_2012373EN.01000602.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/6

---

Order of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

(Case T-340/11) (1)

1

(Action for damages - State aid - Limitation - Damage for which compensation may be awarded - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

2012/C 373/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyons, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for damages brought on the basis of Article 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of the unlawful decision of the Commission of 10 November concerning State aid N 679/97 and, secondly, on account of an alleged infringement of the principle of sound administration stemming from a failure on the part of the Commission to compensate for the harmful effects of that decision

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Régie Networks and NRJ Global shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Régie Networks and NRJ Global shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Phillip Wendell Hogan,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-10923

Visio Financial Services, Inc., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 

OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE-LAW CLAIMS

AND REMANDING THOSE CLAIMS

On or about March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action in Wayne County Circuit Court,

asserting claims relating to a residential mortgage. 

On March 12, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this Court based upon federal

question jurisdiction.

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over that portion of Count I that asserts a

claim based upon the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). All of the remaining

claims asserted in the complaint, however, are state-law claims.

Defendant asks this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims

in Plaintiff’s complaint. (See Notice of Removal at ¶ 10).

The applicable statute regarding supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides, in

pertinent part, that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim

when:

2:15-cv-10923-SFC-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 03/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 81
1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law;

2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the

district court has original jurisdiction;

3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction, or

4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Having reviewed the state-law claims in Plaintiff’s complaint, this Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s state-law claims predominate. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). In addition, the Court finds

that the potential for jury confusion in this case would be great if Plaintiff’s federal claims were

presented to a jury along with Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Thus, the potential for jury confusion

is yet another reasons for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state-law claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City

of Saginaw, 867 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts II, III, and any

portions of Count I that are based upon state law) and those claims are hereby REMANDED to

the Wayne County Circuit Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: March 18, 2015

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

March 18, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy

Case Manager

2:15-cv-10923-SFC-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 03/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 82
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DeJUAN CARTER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO: 2:15-cv 11370 

 HON: ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 MAG. MONA K. MAJZOUB 

REDFORD TOWNSHIP and J. HAAS, 

in his individual and official capacities, 

 Defendants. 

CHRISTOPHER TRAINOR & ASSOCIATES 

CHRISTOPHER J. TRAINOR (P42449) 

AMY J. DEROUIN (P70514) 

SHAWN C. CABOT (P64021) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

9750 Highland Road 

White Lake, MI 48386 

(248) 886-8650 

shawn.cabot@cjtrainor.com

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & 

ACHO, P.L.C. 

JEFFREY R. CLARK (P33074) 

33900 Schoolcraft Road 

Livonia, MI 48150 

734-261-2400 

734-261-4510-fax 

jclark@cmda-law.com 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL 

EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF 

UPON STIPULATION of the parties and the Court being otherwise fully 

advised in the premises; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall appear for an Independent 

Medical Examination on a mutually convenient date, time, and place to be 

determined by Counsel for the parties; and which can take place after the courtimposed discovery cut-off date. 

2:15-cv-11370-RHC-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 303
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Independent Medical 

Examiner shall not perform any invasive procedures without the prior consent of 

Plaintiff’s Counsel or Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be permitted to have his 

attorney or other third party of Plaintiff’s choosing present. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Counsel shall be provided a 

copy of any report(s) generated as a result of Plaintiff’s Independent Medical 

Examination. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Counsel be permitted to take 

the discovery deposition of Defendants’ Independent Medical Examiner prior to 

the examiner’s trial testimony. 

IT SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2016 

 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

 HONORABLE ROBERT H. CLELAND 

We hereby stipulate to the above Order: 

s/Shawn C. Cabot 

Shawn C. Cabot (P64021) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

s/Jeffrey R. Clark w-consent 

Jeffrey R. Clark (P33074) 

Attorney for Defendants

2:15-cv-11370-RHC-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 304
Exhibit 24



POWER OF ATTORNEY OF EDS DIRECTOR



KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director of Electronic Data Systems Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which will file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an Annual Report for 2004 on Form 10-K, hereby constitutes and appoints Michael H. Jordan, Jeffrey M. Heller, Robert H. Swan and Bruce
N. Hawthorne his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power to act without the others, to execute such Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto on behalf of the undersigned in the capacity indicated.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
effective as of the 2ndday of February, 2005.



/S/ W. ROY DUNBARDirector/S/ ROGER A. ENRICODirector/S/ RICHARD W. FISHERDirector/S/ RAY J. GROVESDirector/S/ ELLEN M. HANCOCKDirector/S/ RAY L. HUNTDirector/S/ EDWARD A. KANGASDirector/S/ C. ROBERT KIDDERDirector/S/ JUDITH RODINDirector/S/ SOLOMON D. TRUJILLODirector
#### John A. Husson, *Appellant, v.*William G. Oppenheim, *Respon*dent.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
Second Amendment Agreement dated October 8, 2004 to Master Agency Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.ii.f.

  
 October 8, 2004 
 Second Amendment Agreement to the Master Agency Agreement  
 Convertibility Enhanced Note Issuance Program 
  
 This Second Amendment Agreement dated October 8, 2004, between: 
  
 CARGILL FERTILIZANTES S.A., a Brazilian corporation established at Avenida Morumbi, 8234, in the city of Sao Paulo, State of Sao Paulo (hereinafter, the
“Issuer”), and 
  
 CARGILL FINANCIAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
established at 12700 Whitewater Drive, Minnetonka, MN, USA 55343 (hereinafter, the “Agent”), 
  
 WHEREAS, the Parties executed on August 08, 2002 a Master Agency Agreement (hereinafter simply referred to as the “Master Agreement”) relative to a Convertibility Enhanced Note Issuance Program, under which
certain Notes up to the total principal amount of USD 100,000,000 may be issued by the Agent on behalf of Issuer, and the Parties executed an Amendment Agreement on October 30, 2002 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties have agreed to amend the Master Agency as follows: 
  
 1. The Parties have agreed to increase the total principal amount of Notes that may be issued from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 effective
April 1, 2004. 
  
 2. Except for the present amendment, the Parties expressly
confirm and ratify all other provisions of the Master Agency Agreement and the Amendment Agreement, which remain in full force and effect. 
  
 3. This Second Amended Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, United States of America. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Second Amendment Agreement to be executed by
their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, on the date first above written. 
  
 CARGILL FINANCIAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

							
				
	By:	 	 	 	 	 	 
			
	CARGILL FERTILIZANTES S.A.	 	 	 	 
				
	By:	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

  

 Page 1 of 1
#### § 174.180 Applicability.

This subpart applies to OSVs except liftboats inspected under subchapter L of this chapter and OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) as defined in § 125.160 of this chapter.

[USCG-2012-0208, 79 FR 48939, Aug. 18, 2014]
# C_2014159EN.01000401.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering

(Case C-387/12) (1)

1

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred))

2014/C 159/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hi Hotel HCF SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Uwe Spoering

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — International jurisdiction in respect of tort, delict or quasi-delict — Act committed in one Member State and consisting in assistance in the commission of an unlawful act in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where there are several supposed perpetrators of damage allegedly caused to rights of copyright protected in the Member State of the court seised, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the causal event of the damage, of a court within whose jurisdiction the supposed perpetrator who is being sued did not act, but does allow the jurisdiction of that court to be established on the basis of the place where the alleged damage occurs, provided that the damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. If that is the case, the court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

1

---
§ 193.05-10 Fixed fire extinguishing systems. ( a ) Approved fire extinguishing systems must be installed in all lamp and paint lockers, oil rooms, and similar spaces.
( b ) A fixed carbon dioxide or clean agent fire extinguishing system complying with 46 CFR subparts 95.15 and 95.16 must be installed for: ( 1 ) Internal combustion engine installations;
( 2 ) Gas turbine installations;
( 3 ) Enclosed spaces containing gasoline engines;
( 4 ) Chemical storerooms;
( 5 ) Any space containing auxiliaries with an aggregate power of 1,000 brake horsepower (b.h.p.) or greater, or their fuel oil units, including purifiers, valves, and manifolds, on vessels of 1,000 gross tons and over; and
( 6 ) Enclosed ventilating systems installed for electric propulsion motors or generators.
( c ) On vessels of 1,000 gross tons and over, a fixed carbon dioxide or clean agent fire extinguishing system complying with 46 CFR subparts 95.15 and 95.16 or a foam system complying with 46 CFR subpart 95.17 must be installed for any space containing main or auxiliary oil fired boilers or their associated fuel oil units, valves, or manifolds in the line between the settling tanks and the boilers.
( d ) Systems for spaces containing explosives and other dangerous articles or substances must also comply with 46 CFR part 194.
[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33893, June 7, 2012]
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending July 29, 2006

|Filer                             | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                          
|--------------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|Graystone Financial Services Corp | * 3A1       | Graystone Financial Services Corp, Lancaster, PA to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100% of Graystone Bank, Lancaster, PA. | Newspaper:08/26/2006Federal Register:08/28/2006
|Newspaper:                        | 08/26/2006 
|Federal Register:                 | 08/28/2006 

## 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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 82 (Monday, April 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21243-21246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2098]



[[Page 21243]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 07-21]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164, dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 07-21 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
ODS Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 21244]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30AP07.014


[[Page 21245]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30AP07.015


[[Page 21246]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30AP07.016

[FR Doc. 07-2098 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2190]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of 
the President's Cancer Panel.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(9)(b), Title 5 U.S.C., as 
amended, because the premature disclosure of information and the 
discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of 
recommendations.

    Name of Committee: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: May 24, 2007.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: The Panel will review the final draft of 2006/2007 
Annual Report to the President.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
Building 6116, Room 212, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Abby Sandler, PhD, Executive Secretary, Chief, 
Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, National Cancer 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 6116, Room 212, 
MSC 8349, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8349, 301/
451-9399, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c4f5d525850594e5d7c515d555012525554125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9eedfff0faf2fbecffdef3fff7f2b0f0f7f6b0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm, where an agenda and 
any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 26, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2190 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>