alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 22, 2014

h1015

Order 

Clerk

October 22, 2014

149214

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149214

COA: 319949

Kent CC: 13-001112-FH

CALVIN LEON LIPTROT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2014 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 272.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe the requirements and procedures for determining the condition of vessels receiving operating-differential subsidy, to prescribe the requirements for reporting and substantiating maintenance and repair (M&R) expenses, and to establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether a M&R expense is subsidizable.
Argued and submitted October 4,

appeal dismissed November 29, 1995

#### DELWAYNE THOMPSON, *Appellant, v.*Frank HALL and Stan Mazur-Hart, *Respondents.*

(94C-12753; CA A85835)

906 P2d 867

Garrett Richardson argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was David W. Knofler, Multnomah Defenders, Inc.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appeal dismissed. *Thompson v. Prinslow,*138 Or App 183, 906 P2d 310 (1995).
#### § 174.075 Compartments assumed flooded: general.

The individual flooding of each of the compartments described in §§ 174.080 and 174.085 must be assumed for the purpose of determining compliance with § 174.065 (a). Simultaneous flooding of more than one compartment must be assumed only when indicated in §§ 174.080 and 174.085.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 5, 2007, 8 a.m. to June 5, 2007, 1 p.m., Georgetown Suites, 1111 30th Street, NW., Washington, DC 2007 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 24, 2007, 72 FR 20352-20354.                

The meeting has been changed to “Clinical Studies in Digestive Diseases and Nutrition”. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: April 26, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2189 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, George L. Ball, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, as amended; and





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





/s/ GEORGE L. BALLGeorge
      L. BallChief
      Executive Officer





May 10,
2010





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanders Morris Harris
Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2015007EN.01000201.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

(Case C-476/12) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Principle of non-discrimination - Collective agreement providing for a dependent child allowance - Calculation of allowance paid to part-time workers in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis))

(2015/C 007/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Applicant:

Defendant: Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the principle pro rata temporis applies to the calculation of the amount of a dependent child allowance paid by an employer to a part-time worker pursuant to a collective agreement such as that applicable to the employees of Austrian banks and bankers.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 176.801 Notice of inspection deficiencies and requirements. ( a ) If during the inspection of a vessel, the vessel or its equipment is found not to conform to the requirements of law or the regulations in this subchapter, the marine inspector will point out deficiencies observed and discuss all requirements with the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof. Normally, the marine inspector will list all such requirements that have not been completed and present the list to the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof. However, when a deficiency presents a serious safety hazard to the vessel or its passengers or crew, and exists through negligence or willful noncompliance, the marine inspector may issue a Report of Violation (ROV) to the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof.
( b ) In any case where further clarification of or reconsideration of any requirement placed against the vessel is desired, the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof, may discuss the matter with the cognizant OCMI.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51049, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### § 188.10-19 Commandant.

This term means the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
§ 171.045 Weight of passengers and crew. ( a ) This section applies to each vessel, regardless of when constructed.
( b ) Compliance with the intact stability requirements applicable to each vessel, using a total weight of passengers and crew carried, is based upon an Assumed Average Weight per Person, which is determined in accordance with § 170.090 of this chapter.
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78085, Dec. 14, 2010]
# C_2008246EN.01001301.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/13

---

List of ports designated for the landing or transhipment of fish frozen after being caught by third-country fishing vessels in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention Area

(2008/C 246/08)

The publication of the list (1) is based on Article 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 of 16 January 2008 fixing for 2008 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2).

1

2

| Member State | Designated Ports |
| --- | --- |
| Denmark | Esbjerg
  Fredericia
  Hanstholm
  Hirtshals
  København
  Skagen
  Ålborg
  Århus |
| Germany | Hamburg
  Cuxhaven
  Bremerhaven
  Sassnitz
  Rostock |
| Spain | Vigo port area
  Marín
  Vilagarcía de Arousa |
| France | Boulogne-sur-Mer
  Brest
  Douarnenez
  Concarneau
  Nantes-St Nazaire |
| Ireland | Killybegs (3) |
| Latvia | Rīga
  Liepāja
  Ventspils |
| Lithuania | Klaipėda |
| Netherlands | Eemshaven
  Ijmuiden
  Harlingen
  Velsen-Noord
  Vlissingen
  Scheveningen (3) |
| Poland | Gdynia
  Świnoujście
  Szczecin |
| Portugal | Lisbon port
  Leixões
  Aveiro
  Setúbal
  Madeira:
  Funchal
  Açores:
  Ponta Delgada, Ilha de S. Miguel
  Horta, Ilha do Faial
  Praia da Vitória, Ilha Terceira (3) |
| Sweden | Gothenburg |
| United Kingdom | Grimsby
  Hull
  Immingham
  Peterhead
  Aberdeen (3)

  Fraserburgh (3)

  Lerwick (3)

  Scrabster (3)

  Kinlochbervie (3)

  Lochinver (3)

  Ullapool (3) |

Member State

Designated Ports

Denmark

Esbjerg

Fredericia

Hanstholm

Hirtshals

København

Skagen

Ålborg

Århus

Germany

Hamburg

Cuxhaven

Bremerhaven

Sassnitz

Rostock

Spain

Vigo port area

Marín

Vilagarcía de Arousa

France

Boulogne-sur-Mer

Brest

Douarnenez

Concarneau

Nantes-St Nazaire

Ireland

Killybegs (3)

3

Latvia

Rīga

Liepāja

Ventspils

Lithuania

Klaipėda

Netherlands

Eemshaven

Ijmuiden

Harlingen

Velsen-Noord

Vlissingen

Scheveningen (3)

3

Poland

Gdynia

Świnoujście

Szczecin

Portugal

Lisbon port

Leixões

Aveiro

Setúbal

Madeira:

Funchal

Açores:

Ponta Delgada, Ilha de S. Miguel

Horta, Ilha do Faial

Praia da Vitória, Ilha Terceira (3)

3

Sweden

Gothenburg

United Kingdom

Grimsby

Hull

Immingham

Peterhead

Aberdeen (3)

3

Fraserburgh (3)

3

Lerwick (3)

3

Scrabster (3)

3

Kinlochbervie (3)

3

Lochinver (3)

3

Ullapool (3)

3

---

(1)  The list with more detailed information is also available on the websites of the Commission and NEAFC.

1

(2)  OJ L 19, 23.1.2008, p. 1.

2

(3)  Not an EU Border Inspection Post (BIP).

3

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mniteb**~tate~** 

# QCourt of**§ppeaI~** 

# for tbejfeberaI QCircuit

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, 

### Petitioner, 

### v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

### Respondent.

2012-3106
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in consolidated case nos. DC3330110367-1-1, DC4324110475-1-1, and DC3330110637-1-1. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Robert Donnell Donaldson moves to strike respondent's briefbecause the brief "contains assertions that are Factually Incorrect." The Department of Homeland Security moves for leave to file a response and opposes. Donaldson replies. Upon consideration thereof,**L~** ROBERT DONALDSON v. DHS 2 IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) Donaldson's motion is denied. The court treats Donaldson's motion as his reply brief. Copies ofthe reply brief and this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel. (2) The motion for leave to file a response is granted.


## AUG 15 2012 Date

cc: Robert Donnell Donaldson Joshua 

### E. Kurland, Esq. s26 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



## u.s.

## couJ~~'l~PEALS

## FOR THEFEDERALCIRCUIT



## AUG 1

## 5ZOlZ JANHORBALY 

### CLERK
Exhibit 99.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Barry L. Lazarus, the Chief Financial Officer of Inland Retail Real Estate Trust Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 

/S/______________________________

Name: Barry L. Lazarus

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1221

In Re: BILLY DARRYL FLOYD; In Re: ARLIE LAWSON RUSHING, Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (MISC-00-7-1) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Darryl Floyd, Arlie Lawson Rushing, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Billy Darryl Floyd and Arlie Lawson Rushing petition this court for a writ of mandamus. They ask that we order the district court to release certified copies of a subpoena to testify before a grand jury and an order to show cause for failure to honor the subpoena, both documents sealed by order of the court. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner bears the burden of showing that his right to the relief sought is plain andindisputable, that respondent has a clear duty to perform the requested act, and that petitioner has no other avenues of relief. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Floyd and Rushing have failed to sustain this burden byshowing their clear entitlement to the sealed documents. Therefore, we deny their motion for judicial notice and their request for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 10-6, PageID.157 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.75-5 Certificates of approval. ( a ) The Deputy for Operations Policy and Capabilities (CG-DCO-D) or his delegate, will issue a certificate of approval to the manufacturer or party named therein and certify that such manufacturer or party has submitted satisfactory evidence that the item described therein complies with the applicable laws and regulations, which are outlined on the reverse side of the certificate.
( b ) The approval shall be in effect for a period of 5 years from the date on the certificate of approval unless canceled or suspended by proper authority, or otherwise specifically stated in the certificate.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4781, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34533, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50725, Sept. 27, 1996; CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51041, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58341, Sept. 30, 2004]
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

#### § 2.85-1 Assignment of load lines.

Most U.S. vessels, and foreign vessels in U.S. waters are required to have load line assignments in accordance with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 51. The load lines marks, when placed on a vessel, indicate the maximum draft to which such vessel can be lawfully submerged, in the various circumstances and seasons applicable to such vessel. See subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter for applicable details governing assignment and marking of load lines.

[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51195, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52188, Sept. 30, 1998; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58341, Sept. 30, 2004]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 15

- 00250

- CV

IN RE ALLBRITE CONSTRUCTORS OF TEXAS, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 27, 2015

, relator Allbrite Constructors of Texas, Inc. filed a petition for writ of

mandamus and a motion for temporary relief pending a ruling on the mandamus petition. The court

has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary

relief are denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 392309, styled Allbrite Constructors of Texas, Inc. v. Tempel Builders, I nc.

and John Doe , pending in the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen Crouch

presiding.
# C_2011355EN.01002102.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/21

---

Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)

(Case T-514/11)

2011/C 355/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, 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: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2011 in case R 1816/2010-1, and reject the opposition No B 001494205; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2011 in case R 1816/2010-1, and reject the opposition No B 001494205;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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: The word mark ‘BETWIN’, among others for goods in classes 25, 26 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7281652

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6780951, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, among others for goods in classes 25 and 28; French trade mark registration No 23191414, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, inter alia for goods in class 25; French trade mark registration No 99822017, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, inter alia for goods in class 28

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks in dispute are confusingly similar.

Pleas in law:

---