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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. 

et al., 

 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 15-10628-MFL-EAS 

(Consolidated with 

Case No. 15-11264-MFL-EAS) 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

Upon review and consideration of Versata’s Motion to File its Motion for 

Leave to File Motion to Reconsider Under Seal, the Court GRANTS the motion. 

Versata publicly may file redacted versions of certain exhibits to and portions 

of its Motion for Leave to File Motion to Reconsider, and under seal may file 

unredacted versions of those documents. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 21, 2019 
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on August 21, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
#### Garry R. Brinkerhoff, *Appellant, v.*Lydia P. Vinton, *Respondent.*

Order and judgment appealed from affirmed, with costé of appeal. Opinion by

Barker, J.
### TS **- B196Y2**  **MFG Process**

**Se ction A**  **– Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter**  **- Operations**  **Confidential**

1. Operation Description d. Process description 

# Sanitized
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills will meet in closed session on May 30-31, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                              ( print page 24571)    

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess all aspects of nuclear deterrent skills as well as the progress Department of Energy (DoE) has made since the publication of the Chiles Commission report.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at                         *clifton.phillips@osd.mil,*                         or via phone at (703) 571-0083.                    

Dated: April 27, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-2174  Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20615 Summary Calendar

OSCAR L. SHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

VERNON K. PITTMAN, Major, JASON COLLIER; M. DODSON, Captain;

W. DOSSEY; UNKNOWN ERDMAN; JOSEPH C. KOVACS; UNKNOWN ASCHBER; F. E. FIGUEROA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3780)

April 30, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Oscar L. Shaw, Texas prisoner # 646048, filed a § 1983 action

agai nst numerous officials of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice in which he made the following complaints: the defendants

(1) unlawfully disciplined him on three occasions, (2) retaliated2 The magistrate judge’s order expressly stated that “failure

to comply as directed may result in the dismissal of this action.”

3 See McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988).

2 against him for filing a civil action, (3) denied him access to the

law library and indigent supplies, and (4) delayed reordering his

medications. The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred

ordered Shaw to file a more definite statement and to respond to

the order within 30 days. Shaw did not comply with the order.

Almost five months later, the district court dismissed Shaw’s

original complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the

magistrate judge’s order. 2 Shaw timely filed notice of the present

appeal. We affirm.

The district court allowed Shaw approximately five months to

file a more definite statement. He did not do so, even though the

magistrate judge expressly cautioned him against such delinquency.

The district court d id not abuse its discretion in dismissing

Shaw’s claim without prejudice for failing to comply with the order

to file a more definite statement. 3

AFFIRMED.
§ 174.080 Flooding on self-elevating and surface type units. ( a ) On a surface type unit or self-elevating unit, all compartments within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of the hull of the unit between two adjacent main watertight bulkheads, the bottom shell, and the uppermost continuous deck or first superstructure deck where superstructures are fitted must be assumed to be subject to simultaneous flooding.
( b ) On the mat of a self-elevating unit, all compartments of the mat must be assumed to be subject to individual flooding.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MONICA MELISSA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No: 15-11345

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Presently before the Court is the report issued on April 21, 2016 by Magistrate Judge R.

Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court grant in part the

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and

remand the case for further proceedings. Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that

the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days

of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections

to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.

#19] is ADOPTED.

2:15-cv-11345-DML-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 05/09/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 384
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #16] is

GRANTED IN PART.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #17] is

DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED to the Commission for further

administrative proceedings. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 9, 2016

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on May 9, 2016.

s/Holly Monda 

HOLLY MONDA

-2-

2:15-cv-11345-DML-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 05/09/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 385
### CHECKLIST 

### r C 

# ( CHARACTERISTICS 

# t FEDERAL REQUIREMENT, RCRA CITE STATE AUTHORITY IF DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL STATUTE REGULATION REQUIREMENT EXPLAIN SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS 

### WASTE

CHARACTERISTIC OF IGNITABILITY , "liquid/flash point less

than 

### 60°C. 261.21 a)(1) -090(5)(a)(1) non-liquid/burns under (5) (a) (1i) standaid temperature

- and" pressure 261.21 (a) ( 2

ianitable comoressed'oasI261.i1(a)· (5)(a)(i11) C5). (a) (i v ) 261.21(2)(4 oxidizer 

# 1.( 5) (b) 

### EPA number 0001 261.21(b) 

### CHRACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY aoueous/oh < 2 or > 12.51 261. 22(a (1) (6)(a)(1) 

### "" '. 1 (6)(a)(1i) 

## (·>C_" 1.1guid/corrodes steel 

### I 261.22(a)(2) " 

### EPA number 0002 

# I251.22(b)

### ]~(-6-)(-b~)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CHARACTERISTIC OF REACTIVITY (7) (a) (i) unstable/violent chanoe 261.23(a) 1) reacts violently (7) (a) (ii) with weter 1261.23 a) 2) (7)(a)(iii)

otent1011 261.23(a)(3) (7) (a) (iv) aenerates toxic ases 261.23(a)(4)1 cyanide or s'ulfide bear-\ 

# I (7) (a) (v) 1nq/oenerates toxicoases 261.23(a)(5)**detonat~on/expios1on,** 

# I (7 )( a) (vi) ; f heated 1261.23(a)(6) detonation/explosion (7) ( a) (vi.1 ) 

### ,at'STP 261.23(2)(7) 261.23(a)(8), (7)(a)(viii) forbidden ex losive 

### 251. 23(b) 

# I (7)(b) 

### EPA number 

### 0003 CHARACTERISTIC OF EP'TOXICITY test critieria and waste list 261.24(a) (8) (a) & (c) EPA numbers 261.24(b (8) (b) & (c') 

### ( '­



### A-14
#### § 173.080 Damage stability requirements.

Each oceanographic vessel must comply with § 171.080 of this subchapter as a category Z vessel.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                SIPEX CORPORATION

                            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 Annual Report of Sipex Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walid Maghribi,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit accompanying such Report and shall not be deemed filed
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

/s/ Walid Maghribi
------------------------------
Walid Maghribi
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2004
§ 221.67 Stipulation procedure. ( a ) When the Vessel Transfer Office decides to proceed under this section, that Office shall notify the Party in writing by registered or certified mail— ( 1 ) Of the alleged violation and the applicable statute and regulations;
( 2 ) Of the maximum penalty that may be assessed for each violation;
( 3 ) Of a summary of the evidence supporting the violation;
( 4 ) Of the penalty that the Vessel Transfer Officer will accept in settlement of the violation;
( 5 ) Of the right to examine all the material in the case file and have a copy of all written documents provided upon request;
( 6 ) That by accepting the penalty, the Party waives the right to have the matter considered by a Hearing Officer in accordance with §§ 221.73 to 221.89 of this subpart, and that if the Party elects to have the matter considered by a Hearing Officer, the Hearing Officer may assess a penalty less than, equal to, or greater than that stipulated in settlement if the Hearing Officer finds that a violation occurred; and
( 7 ) That a violation will be kept on record and may be used by the Maritime Administration in aggravation of an assessment of a penalty for a subsequent violation by that Party.
( b ) Upon receipt of the notification specified in paragraph (a) of this section, a Party may within 30 days— ( 1 ) Agree to the stipulated penalty in the manner specified in the notification; or
( 2 ) Notify in writing the Vessel Transfer Officer that the Party elects to have the matter considered by a Hearing Officer in accordance with the procedure specified in §§ 221.73 through 221.89 of this subpart.
( c ) If, within 30 days of receipt of the notification specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the Party neither agrees to the penalty nor elects the informal hearing procedure, the Party will be deemed to have waived its right to the informal hearing procedure and the penalty will be considered accepted. If a monetary penalty is assessed, it is due and payable to the United States, and the Maritime Administration may initiate appropriate action to collect the penalty.
EXHIBIT 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT RESERVOIR
ENGINEERS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement numbers 333-52460 and 333-37790 of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and its subsidiaries on Form S-8 of the reference to Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and its subsidiaries, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ C.H. (Scott) Rees IIIC.H. (Scott) Rees III President and Chief Operating Officer




Dallas, Texas

March 4, 2003
#### CHARLES KONTUR, PLAINTIFF, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justice Pakicee.

For the plaintiff, *James B. Furber.*

For the defendant, *Henry II. Fryling.*

Pek Cukiam.

The only reason argued in support of this rule is that the damages were excessive. The verdict was for $19,000.

The plaintiff was in the business as an automobile repairer and was called out with his wrecking car for another car that was stalled on the public road at night. The plaintiff ran his wrecking car ahead of the other, backed it up to the other car and was between the two ears engaged in coupling them in some way for the purpose of towing the injured car to the repair shop when suddenly the defendant’s truck operated by defendant’s servant ran into the rear of the disabled car and pushed it into the wrecking car, crushing the plaintiff between the two. Plaintiff was one hundred and eleven days in the hospital and went back again for one hundred and ninety-six days more; he was injured on the shoulder and both legs, especially the right leg, from which a large piece of flesh was gouged out, leaving an infection which ultimately required extensive skin grafting. He claimed that leg was almost useless and that it could not be used to any extent without breaking open the scar, and at the time *332of the trial there was a running sore on the leg. He seems to be out of business permanently, and his earnings have dropped from 'some $75 a week to $25 a week. The medical and hospital expenses aggregate nearly $2,000. We do not consider the verdict under the circumstances to have been excessive. The rule to show cause will be discharged.
### Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 December 23, 2005

Mr. Jonathan Blees Assistant Chief Counsel California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Mail Station 14 Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 Dear Mr. Blees: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has received the California Energy Commission's petition for exemption from federal preemption of California's water conservation standards for residential clothes washers, dated September 13, 2005, and the supplemental letter dated December 5, 2005, regarding the requirements under 10 CFR 430.42(c). By this letter, DOE is now providing you notification that the Department has reviewed your September 13, 2005, petition and the December 5, 2005, letter and determined that the regulatory requirements have been met and that DOE has accepted your petition for exemption from federal preemption pursuant to 10 CFR 430.42(f). Sincerely,

Douglas L. Faulkner Acting Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy cc: Charles A. Samuel, General Counsel Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, PC

Printed with soy ink en iecyeled paper
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000908

24-FEB-2016

08:00 AM
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Theodore A. Boutacoff, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2010
(i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.

Date: March 31, 2010



By:

/s/    THEODORE A.
BOUTACOFFName:

Theodore A. BoutacoffTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30888

Conference Calendar

CLINTON M DESROCHE

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RODNEY STRAIN, Sheriff; MARLIN PEACHEY, Warden; NORTHCUTT,

Deputy; GIORGIANA BENNET, Lieutenant; Doctor FRENCH, Medical Doctor;

Doctor HIGGINS, Medical Doctor

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CV-1372

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clinton M. Desroche, Louisiana prisoner # 487714, has moved for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous and for failure to state

a claim. The district court denied Desroche IFP status on appeal and certified

that the appeal was not taken in good faith under § 1915(a)(3).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30888

2

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Desroche is challenging the district

court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor,

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Desroche argues that he lacks funds to pursue

his appeal, but he fails to brief any argument regarding the district court’s

certification decision or, in particular, its dismissal of his § 1983 lawsuit as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the

appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are

afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even

pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Desroche has thus abandoned any

challenge to the district court’s denial of IFP on appeal. See Brinkmann, 813

F.2d at 748. Accordingly, we deny his IFP motion and his motion for the

appointment for counsel on appeal, and we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

220 (5th Cir. 1983).

The district court’s dismissal of Desroche’s § 1983 lawsuit as frivolous and

for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) and our dismissal of this

appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Desroche is warned that, if

he accumulates three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility

unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE YORK GROUP, INC. 1997 FOURTH QUARTER REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE T0 SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              15,478
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,117
<INVENTORY>                                         36,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    79,522
<PP&E>                                              59,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                      21,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     130,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               22,915
<BONDS>                                             25,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                89
<OTHER-SE>                                          75,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       130,545
<SALES>                                            178,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   178,690
<CGS>                                              130,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      130,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     19,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7,394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 12,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        12,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.34


</TABLE>
#### § 173.090 General.

This subpart applies to each vessel that is equipped for towing.