alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM E. POWELL, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11033 

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OCTOBER 23, 2015 

MOTION FOR VAUGHN INDEX (DE 39) 

This case is one of three Plaintiff has filed in this Court against the Internal 

Revenue Service.1

 Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit pro se on March 19, 2015. 

(DE 1.) He is proceeding in forma pauperis. (See DEs 2, 5 & 13.) 

This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters. (See DEs 26, 29.) 

On September 8, 2015, I entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

July 21, 2015 motion to compel preparation of a Vaughn index. (DEs 24, 30.) 

The order specifically provided: “Plaintiff may renew his motion for a Vaughn 

index during dispositive motion practice but is directed to seek concurrence in 

 

1 See also Powell v. IRS, Case No. 2:14-cv-12626-SFC-MJH and Powell v. IRS, 

2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP. 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 40 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 185
2 

accordance with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a) and to abide by my online motion practice 

guidelines before refiling any such motion.” (DE 30 at 2.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 23, 2015 motion for 

Vaughn index. (DE 39.) Upon consideration, it is DENIED. First, the filing 

does not certify that Plaintiff has complied with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a) (“Seeking 

Concurrence in Motions and Requests.”). Second, pursuant to this Court’s 

October 22, 2015 order setting case management deadlines, “Dispositive motions 

shall be filed no later than January 15, 2016, with opposition and reply briefs filed 

in accordance with the E.D. Mich. LRs.” (DE 38 at 2.) Thus, dispositive 

motion practice has yet to begin. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on October 28, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 40 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 186
# C_2011186EN.01003502.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/35

---

Action brought on 14 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-46/11)

2011/C 186/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to close the file on the applicant’s request for assistance.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 7 June 2010 closing the file on the applicant’s request for assistance of 5 December 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 7 June 2010 closing the file on the applicant’s request for assistance of 5 December 2007;

| — | Order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 10 000, subject to increase in the course of proceedings, for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, and to reimburse the costs incurred in the pre-litigation procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 10 000, subject to increase in the course of proceedings, for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, and to reimburse the costs incurred in the pre-litigation procedure;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1515
CHARLES E. REEVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1008-1) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles E. Reeve, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, Robert J. Branman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles E. Reeve appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint in which he requested that the district court enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from levying on his Social Security benefits and award him monetary damages. We have granted the motion to amend the caption to reflect that the United States is the proper party defendant. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Reeve v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , No. CA-04-1008-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Roger S. LIANG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G.J. GUIRBINO, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-57043.

D.C. No. CV-03-00254-MLR(RZ).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

*770Roger S. Liang, Imperial, CA, pro se.

Louis W. Karlin, Nora Genelin, Office of the Californiá Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roger S. Liang, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal as untimely of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He contends that the district court should have reached the merits of his claims because he is actually innocent of the second degree murder for which he was convicted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has decided whether the habeas corpus statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) may be overridden by a showing of actual innocence. *Majoy v. Roe,*296 F.3d 770, 776 (9th Cir.2002). To make such a showing, a petitioner must establish that “in light of all the evidence, including evidence not introduced at trial, ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found [him] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” *Id.*(quoting *Schlup v. Delo,*513 U.S. 298, 316, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995)). The petitioner must establish his factual innocence of the crime, and not mere legal insufficiency. *Jaramillo v. Stewart,*340 F.3d 877, 882-83 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner actually innocent if establishes self-defense rendering conduct non-criminal).

The evidence presented at trial showed that Liang accosted the victim. The victim walked toward Liang, pulling off his shirt. When he was six to eight feet away, Liang shot him. Liang testified that he shot the victim out of fear because he himself had been shot and severely injured about two months earlier. In closing argument the prosecutor argued that Liang’s testimony was not credible, in part because he did not offer any medical evidence of his prior injuries.

Liang offered medical evidence before the district court, which assumed that this evidence established that Liang was shot in the chest two months before he killed the victim. The district court concluded that the newly presented evidence might have made Liang’s self-defense claim more believable, but did not meet the *Schlup*standard for establishing a miscarriage of justice. We agree. *See Majoy,*296 F.3d at 776.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### William Maher, *Respondent, v.*S. Hatch Gould and another, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the judg*400ment as indicated in the opinion, in which case the judgment so reduced is affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
§ 183.220 General safety provisions. ( a ) Electrical equipment and installations must be suitable for the roll, pitch, and vibration of the vessel underway.
( b ) All equipment, including switches, fuses, lampholders, etc., must be suitable for the voltage and current utilized.
( c ) Receptacle outlets of the type providing a grounded pole or a specific direct current polarity must be of a configuration that will not permit improper connection.
( d ) All electrical equipment and circuits must be clearly marked and identified.
( e ) Any cabinet, panel, box, or other enclosure containing more than one source of power must be fitted with a sign warning persons of this condition and identifying the circuits to be disconnected.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF AVTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER, 30 1997 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      269
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   460
<PP&E>                                             728
<DEPRECIATION>                                      87
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                         123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1769
<SALES>                                           2346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2346
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2416)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2404 

To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress outlining 

the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in 

Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself, Mr. JONES, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SESTAK, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. 

BERRY, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. 

PAYNE, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. OLVER, Ms. WOOLSEY, 

Mr. COHEN, Mr. HARE, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. 

KUCINICH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

FATTAH, Ms. WATSON, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. WELCH, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. 

HODES, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. CONYERS, 

Mr. WALZ, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. CLAY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. CAPUANO, 

Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. RUSH, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. WATERS, Mr. GRAYSON, Mr. 

GUTIERREZ, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. NORTON, Ms. RICHARDSON, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. 

ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. 

MATSUI, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. 

SCHRADER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. FARR, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. 

COSTELLO, Mr. PERRIELLO, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Ms. BERKLEY, and 

Ms. KILROY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

to Congress outlining the United States exit strategy 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2404 IH

for United States military forces in Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON AFGHANISTAN EXIT STRATEGY. 

4 Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary of 

5 Defense shall submit to Congress a report outlining the 

6 United States exit strategy for United States military 

7 forces in Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring 

8 Freedom. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
# C_2008149EN.01000501.xml

| 14.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 149/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 7.12.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 586/07 |
| Member State | Denmark |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Forlængelse og ændring af lempelsen af spildevandsafgiften |
| Legal basis | Spildevandsafgiftslov (LBKG nr. 636 af 21.8.1998) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Tax allowance |
| Budget | Overall budget: DKK 100 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration | 1.1.2008-31.12.2017 |
| Economic sectors | Beneficiaries in six sectors: cellulose, vitamin, organic pigment production, fish processing, sugar and pectin production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Finansministeriet |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

7.12.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 586/07

Member State

Denmark

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Forlængelse og ændring af lempelsen af spildevandsafgiften

Legal basis

Spildevandsafgiftslov (LBKG nr. 636 af 21.8.1998)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Tax allowance

Budget

Overall budget: DKK 100 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration

1.1.2008-31.12.2017

Economic sectors

Beneficiaries in six sectors: cellulose, vitamin, organic pigment production, fish processing, sugar and pectin production

Name and address of the granting authority

Finansministeriet

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
# C_2011145EN.01003402.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/34

---

Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya & C. (BASKAYA)

(Case T-170/11)

2011/C 145/57

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Spintig, U. Sander and H. Förster, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baskaya di Baskaya & C. s.a.s. (Grosseto, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 in Case R 534/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 in Case R 534/2010-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Baskaya di Baskaya & C. s.a.s.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including word element ‘BASKAYA’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registered figurative mark including the word element ‘Passaia’ for goods in Class 32.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the Board of Appeal failed to apply Article 5 of the German-Swiss Agreement of 13 April 1892 on mutual protection of patents, trade marks and designs and for that reason erred in law by failing to have regard to the proof of use adduced by the applicant.

Pleas in law:

1

---

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

1

---
#### § 182.715 Piping subject to more than 1,034 kPa (150 psig) in non-vital systems.

Piping subject to more than 1,034 kPa (150 psig) in a non-vital system must be designed, fabricated, and inspected in accordance with the principles of ANSI B 31.1, or other industry standard acceptable to the Commandant.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# Date and Time:

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 10 a.m.

# Place:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# Items to be Discussed:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b) and title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-2084 Filed 4-24-07; 2:27 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 09a0746n.06

No. 09-3385

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

VAUGHN McCLINE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID ROOSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: MERRITT, GIBBONS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The parties in this case have waived oral argument and

submitted the case on the briefs. It is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant Roose, a police

officer, who disagrees with the district court’s ruling denying his defense of qualified immunity. The

appeal is dismissed for the reason that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory

appeal under Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995), in which the Court held that “a

defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s

summary judgment order insofar asthat order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth

a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” The Court stated that “an interlocutory appeal concerning this

kind of issue in a sense makes unwise use of appellate court’s time, by forcing them to decide in the

context of a less developed record, an issue very similar to one they may well decide anyway later,
No. 09-3385

McCline v. Roose

-2-

on a record that will permit a better decision.” Id. at 317. Here in a comprehensive, well-reasoned

opinion, Judge Wells in section III B recites the disputed facts concerning the alleged use of

excessive force. 2009 WL 585844 (March 3, 2009). Those same disputed facts remain disputed on

appeal. The defendant Roose does not agree that the factual allegations of the plaintiff regarding the

use of excessive force should govern the question of qualified immunity on appeal or the question

of whether his conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. He continues to insist on

the facts that the District Court concluded were in dispute.

Thus, Roose’s case does not fall within the category of cases open to interlocutory appeal

based on qualified immunity. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed forlack of appellate jurisdiction, which returns the case

to the District Court for further proceedings.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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. ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (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, 2002
                                 /s/ Jose' A. Infante
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Jose' A. Infante
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer