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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRADLEY A. ARNDT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-11108 

v. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S SECOND AMENDED PRIVILEGE LOG (DE 

73) 

 On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel communications 

made by a human resources team reviewing his ADA request with in-house 

counsel, Anthony W. Dalimonte. Specifically, Plaintiff challenged fifteen items 

listed in Defendant’s privilege log and sought an in camera review of those items 

to determine if any of the documents were not protected (or were only partially 

protected) by attorney-client privilege. (See DE 57-1 at 8-9.) I granted in part and 

denied in part Plaintiff’s motion, and ordered Defendant to amend its privilege log 

with respect to eleven of the fifteen entries to provide sufficient detail as to the 

subject matter of the communications. (DE 68.) Defendant’s revised privilege log 

was to be filed on or before March 30, 2016. 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 74 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1675
2

 Defendant emailed a revised privilege log to my chambers on March 24, 

2016, but did not file it on the docket, perhaps confusing the issue of whether I 

would be doing an in camera review of the privilege log itself. In any event, after 

requesting that the document be filed on the docket, Defendant did so on April 7, 

2016 and I will consider that filing timely. (DE 73.) 

 I have reviewed the second amended privilege log and conclude that 

Defendant has provided sufficient detail as to the subject matter of the 

communications, such that an in camera review of the documents is unnecessary. 

See, e.g., Sid Mike 99, L.L.C. v. Suntrust Bank, No. 2:07-cv-02453-STADKV, 

2009 WL 3255209, at *5-6 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 6, 2009). Accordingly, I will not 

order an in camera review of the fifteen documents identified as privileged by 

Defendant and challenged by Plaintiff, and the amended privilege log (DE 73) is 

deemed sufficient. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 12, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I certify that a copy of this document was sent to parties of record on Tuesday, April 12, 2016,

electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

       s/Michael L. Williams    

       Case Manager to the  

       Honorable Anthony P. Patti

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 74 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1676
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2476

FIJI ZAIRE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EPISCOPAL HIGH SCHOOL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00873-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: September 29, 2020 Decided: October 14, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monique Antonia Miles, OLD TOWNE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Nat P. Calamis, Sarah W. Conkright, CARR MALONEY P.C., Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fiji Zaire, a self-identified African American woman with diabetes, appeals the 

district court’s order granting Episcopal High School’s motion to dismiss her complaint 

alleging she was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment 

because of her race and disability, and then retaliated against after complaining of the 

alleged unlawful treatment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-

12213; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have considered the parties’ arguments in conjunction 

with the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Zaire v. Episcopal High Sch., No. 1:19-cv-00873-CMH-TCB 

(E.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### CORNELIUS F. BEERS, RELATOR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF MORRIS COUNTY AND WILLIAM H. HOSKING, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF MORRIS COUNTY, RESPONDENTS.

Argued October 17, 1929

Decided October 18, 1929.

Before Justices Pakkek, Black and Bodine.

Eor the relator, *George A. Henderson.*

Eor the respondents, *Howard F. Barrett*and *John E. Kennedy.*

Pek Cukiam.

The relator, Cornelius E. Beers, filed with the board of freeholders of Morris county a petition purporting to be signed by at least five hundred legal voters of the county requesting the adoption of the Civil Service act.

On September 11th, 1939, the board of freeholders, by resolution, directed the clerk of the board to have the question of the adoption of the act placed upon the ballot for the ensuing November election. Later, by resolution, the clerk of the board was instructed not to proceed in the matter. We are asked to review this action.

*Pamph. L.*1915, *ch.*17, a supplement to the Civil Service act, so far as pertinent, provides as follows: “Whenever there shall be presented to the clerk of the governing body of any municipality of this state a petition as provided in section 31 of the act to which this act is a supplement, it shall be the duty of said clerk fifteen days thereafter to give *905public notice that the question of the adoption of the Civil Service act will be duly submitted to the legal voters of the said municipality at the next regular election, and to make public notice thereof. * * * 2. In the event of any clerk refusing or neglecting to take such action within such prescribed time, then the state board of civil service commissioners, or any member thereof, may make application to a judge of the Court of Common Pleas holding court in the county in which said municipality is located, for an order directing and compelling the submission of the question involved in said petition, as required by law; and said judge of the Court of Common Pleas shall hear said matter summarily.”

Our view is that the statute is comprehensive and affords a remedy. The statute provides that any citizen or taxpayer in the event of the refusal or neglect of the clerk to act may apply to the Court of Common Pleas in the county for such order as may he required by law. Until the remedy provided by the statute has been exhausted, we fail to see why we should act.

The rule will be discharged.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (22,561)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,895
<PP&E>                                          35,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (23,328)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           368
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,533
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               101,624
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,599
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (311)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,902)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.57)


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B AO R ON G X U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70868 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 153- 315 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B a o R ong X u, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or ab u se o f d i scret i o n th e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o reo p en , an dd e n o v o du e p ro cess 

# FI LED MA R 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70868 2 c la im s . I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng X u’ s m ot i on t o reopen as unt i m e l ybe c aus e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d m or e than 90 day s a f t e rthe i s s uanc e of

the B I A ’s f in a l o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and X u fai l ed t o est abl i sh ei ther c h an g e dc ir c u m s tan c e s in C h in a , se e H e v . G on zales , 5 0 1 F .3 d1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 1 - 3 2 ( 9 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( change i n p er sonal ci rc um st ance s does notes t abl i sh changed ci rc um st ance s i n the coun tryof ori gi n excusi ng un t i m el y m ot i on t o reopen), or that h e a c t e dw i th th e du e d i l i g e n c e r e q u i r e dt o w arr an te q u i t ab l e t o l l i n g o f th e t i me lim ita tio n , s e e I

tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d a t897 ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng i s a va i l abl e t o a pe t i t i one rw ho i s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng due t o de c e pt i on, f r aud, ore rr or , and e x e r c is e s du e d ilig e n c e in d is c o v e r in g s u c h c ir c u m s tan c e s ) . In l i gh tof ou r di sposi t i on , w e do n otre ac h X u’ s c on t ent i on thathi s f orm er att orney’ s per form ance caused hi m prej ud i ce . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7397

JAMES ALLEN HILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN K. WELLS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02018-FL)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Allen Hill, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Allen Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered its order on June 27, 2019. Hill filed his notice of appeal, 

at the earliest, on September 20, 2019.*

 Because Hill failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Hill’s motion for remand. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date the notice could have been properly delivered to prison officials 

for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).
# C_2011298EN.01001901.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/19

---

Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA)

(Case T-360/11)

2011/C 298/34

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: António J. Rodrigues, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Parfums Rochas SAS

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM notified on 21 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2) in the cancellation proceedings Patrizia Rocha/Rochas and, therefore, adjudicate upon the appeal against the decision of 27 September 2010 in the opposition B-001559361. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM notified on 21 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2) in the cancellation proceedings Patrizia Rocha/Rochas and, therefore, adjudicate upon the appeal against the decision of 27 September 2010 in the opposition B-001559361.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: PATRIZIA ROCHA

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Parfums Rochas SAS

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition:‘ROCHAS’

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 as inadmissible.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The time-limit for filing an appeal expired on 28 January 2011.

Pleas in law:

The applicant sent a notice of appeal by post on 27 January 2011, the day before the last day of the time-limit.

---
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Jeffrey E. Platt, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PenhallInternational Corp. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

 

 
| Date:  November 22, 2004 | /s/  Jeffrey E. Platt  |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                     | Jeffrey  E. Platt           |
|                     | Chief  Financial Officer    |

 

----
# C_2011139EN.01003101.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/31

---

Action brought on 28 February 2011 — Conticchio v Commission

(Case F-22/11)

2011/C 139/58

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rosella Conticchio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffridda and A. Tortora, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision relating to the establishment of the applicant’s pension rights in so far as she has been recognised as having a right to the retirement pension for Grade AST7/1, rather than for AST7/2.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision No R/489/10 issued on 18 November 2010 and notified on 24 November 2010, by which the appointing authority rejected the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision No R/489/10 issued on 18 November 2010 and notified on 24 November 2010, by which the appointing authority rejected the appeal;

| — | Grant the applicant a transfer from Grade AST7/1 to Grade AST7/2 with retroactive effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the applicant a transfer from Grade AST7/1 to Grade AST7/2 with retroactive effect;

| — | Recalculate the amount of the pension payable to the applicant, increasing it by approximately EUR 170 per month; |
| --- | --- |

—

Recalculate the amount of the pension payable to the applicant, increasing it by approximately EUR 170 per month;

| — | Order the body responsible for payment of the applicant’s pension to refund the amount owing, as calculated from 1 June 2010 until the date of final settlement, together with interest, monetary indexation and statutory entitlements; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the body responsible for payment of the applicant’s pension to refund the amount owing, as calculated from 1 June 2010 until the date of final settlement, together with interest, monetary indexation and statutory entitlements;

| — | Place the European Commission under an obligation to refund the applicant the sums, not owed, which she will have paid by the time the judgment is delivered in the present case, in relation to the redemption of pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Place the European Commission under an obligation to refund the applicant the sums, not owed, which she will have paid by the time the judgment is delivered in the present case, in relation to the redemption of pension rights;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### § 169.824 Compliance with provisions of certificate of inspection.

The master or person in charge of the vessel shall see that all of the provisions of the certificate of inspection are strictly adhered to. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as limiting the master or person in charge of the vessel, on his own responsibility, from diverting from the route prescribed in the certificate of inspection or taking such other steps as he deems necessary and prudent to assist vessels in distress or for other similar emergencies.
MIED (Rev. 8/07) Notice of Correction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 

v. Judge 

Magistrate Judge 

Defendant(s).

/

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

Docket entry number , filed , has been modified. The explanation for the correction

is stated below.

The docket entry was made on the wrong case. 

The corresponding document image was missing or incomplete.

The wrong document image was associated.

The wrong judicial officer was listed on the case docket.

The filer information was inaccurate or omitted from the docket text.

The judicial officer information was inaccurate or omitted from the docket text.

The docket text was changed to include the Partial Payment Order.

Other:

 If you need further clarification or assistance, please contact at .

 DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT 

Dated:

 Deputy Clerk

Celita Sanford,

Anthony Stewart,

15-11171

Sean F. Cox

Anthony P. Patti

7 June 9, 2017

✔

Jennifer McCoy (313) 234-2653

June 9, 2017 s/Jennifer McCoy
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               12/31/98 to
Return on Equity and Assets               Annualized             3/31/99
                                         --------------     -----------------

<S>                                              <C>         <C>               
Return on average total assets                   (0.08)%                (0.02)%
Return on average equity                         (0.24)                 (0.06)
Dividend payout ratio                                                     N/A
Average equity to average assets                                         0.59

Statement of Per Share Earnings

Net Loss                                                           $ (597,471)
                                                            =================

Average shares outstanding                                          1,154,444

Basic and diluted loss per share                                      $ (0.52)
                                                            =================
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-26139, 333-32123, 333-46829, 333-53057 and 333-58237, and
Forms S-8 Nos. 333-07625, 333-30831, 333-41523, 333-46591, 333-52001 and
333-59329) pertaining to the resale of shares held by America Online, Inc. or
its subsidiaries, Intuit, Inc., the former stockholders of Netbot, Inc. and
MatchLogic, Inc., Netscape Communications Corporation and the former
shareholders of Throw Inc. and Classifieds2000, Inc., 1995 Equity Incentive
Plan, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan and 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Excite, Inc., options to purchase common stock
of Netbot, Inc., options to purchase common stock of MatchLogic, Inc. and
options to purchase common stock of Throw Inc. and Classifieds2000, Inc., of our
report dated January 19, 1999 (March 22, 1999 as to Note 1 Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies, paragraph 4 and Note 2- Business Combinations
and Purchased Product Rights, paragraph 3 and 6), included in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Excite, Inc. for the year ended December 31,1998, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements, as amended, included in this Form
10-K/A.


                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
April 23, 1999