alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 26707-26708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2356]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 26707]]


                Notice of May 8, 2007

                
Continuation of the National Emergency Blocking 
                Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export 
                of Certain Goods to Syria

                On May 11, 2004, pursuant to my authority under the 
                International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1701-1706) and the Syria Accountability and Lebanese 
                Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
                175), I issued Executive Order 13338 in which I 
                declared a national emergency authorizing the blocking 
                of property of certain persons and prohibiting the 
                exportation or reexportation of certain goods to Syria. 
                On April 25, 2006, I issued Executive Order 13399 to 
                expand the scope of this national emergency. I took 
                these actions to deal with the unusual and 
                extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 
                policy, and economy of the United States constituted by 
                the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting 
                terrorism, maintaining its then-existing occupation of 
                Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and 
                missile programs, and undermining United States and 
                international efforts with respect to the stabilization 
                and reconstruction of Iraq.

                Because the actions and policies of the Government of 
                Syria continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary 
                threat to the national security, foreign policy, and 
                economy of the United States, the national emergency 
                declared on May 11, 2004, and the measures adopted on 
                that date and on April 25, 2006, in Executive Order 
                13399, to deal with that emergency, must continue in 
                effect beyond May 11, 2007. Therefore, in accordance 
                with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the 
                national emergency authorizing the blocking of property 
                of certain persons and prohibiting the exportation or 
                reexportation of certain goods to Syria.

[[Page 26708]]

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    May 8, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-2356
Filed 5-9-07; 10:51 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CAROL S. ELLIS WARREN, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11367 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and 

AI c/o IRS MO 64999-0025, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

 On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff Ellis Warren filed a pro se Complaint alleging that the IRS 

withheld her tax refunds in 2013 and 2014 and did not credit her for amounts paid toward her 

taxes in 2004. 

On May 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed sua sponte because Plaintiff did not show that she filed a 

timely refund claim with the IRS in accordance with the jurisdictional limitations set forth in 26 

U.S.C. § 7422(a). Rep. & Rec. 4-5, ECF No. 6. She noted that Plaintiff bears the burden of 

demonstrating, on the face of the complaint, that the administrative claim requirements of § 

7422(a) were met. Id. at 6. Since Plaintiff did not so demonstrate, the Court is without 

jurisdiction to adjudicate her claims against the IRS. Judge Morris recommended dismissing 

those claims without prejudice. As to the Department of Homeland Security, which Plaintiff also 

names as a defendant, Judge Morris recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to 

1:15-cv-11367-TLL-PTM Doc # 7 Filed 07/28/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 22
- 2 - 

state a claim. The complaint, Judge Morris observed, contains no allegations against DHS, nor 

does it explain how DHS fits into Plaintiff’s allegations. 

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, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

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

ECF No. 6, is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with 

prejudice as to Defendant Department of Homeland Security. 

 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for want of jurisdiction as to the remaining Defendants. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: July 28, 2015 

 

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 July 28, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager 

1:15-cv-11367-TLL-PTM Doc # 7 Filed 07/28/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 23
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending February 18, 2006

|Filer                               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|WESSAGUSSETT MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Wessagussett Mutual Holding Company and Wessagussett Bancorp, Inc., both of Weymouth, Massachusetts, to become a mutual bank holding company and a stock bank holding company, respectively (collectively, the Applicants), by acquiring Weymouth Bank, Weymouth, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/27/2006
|Newspaper:                          | Not available
|Federal Register:                   | 02/27/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Second Quarter of 2006 (April 1, 2006 - June 30, 2006)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 272.14 Survey procedures. ( a ) *Prior to survey.* Unless otherwise directed by MARAD, the Operator of a vessel which is required to be surveyed under this subpart shall contact the ship operations unit of the Region Office in which the survey is to be conducted.
( b ) *Operator's assistance to surveyor.* The Operator shall assist the marine surveyor performing the survey for MARAD and shall permit access by that surveyor to all parts of the vessel, its log books, and other official records. The Operator may designate a representative to accompany the marine surveyor during the survey, but no Operator's representative is required to be present during the survey.
( c ) *On-subsidy surveys.* An on-subsidy survey consists of the following: ( 1 ) *Vessel survey.* This includes an inspection and the completion of reports by the surveyor, in sufficient detail to reveal a comprehensive picture of the conditions noted.
( 2 ) *On-subsidy survey report.* The on-subsidy survey report consists of: ( i ) Ship Survey Report, Form MA-58; and
( ii ) As appropriate for the circumstances of the survey and the respective vessel, Forms MA-55 (Turbines and Gears Report); MA-56 (Tooth Contact Report); MA-57 (Drydock Report); and MA-59 (Measurements of Piston Rings and Grooves).
( d ) *Off-subsidy surveys.* An off-subsidy survey consists of the following: ( 1 ) *Repair specifications.* The Operator shall prepare and furnish to the appropriate Region Office detailed repair specifications covering all repair work attributable to completed subsidized service.
( 2 ) *Off-subsidy survey report.* The survey report for an off-subsidy survey consists of the repair specifications required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the findings of the Region Office on these specifications after the survey required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
# C_2012065EN.01001601.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/16

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

(Case T-663/11)

2012/C 65/30

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, 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: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1238/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1238/2010-4;

| — | 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: Royal Mediterranea SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
SUBURBAN

make the choice

1790 Maplelawn
Troy; MI 48084
Phone: 248.585.8800
Fax: 248.519.9431

S

Suburban Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram-of Troy

www.suburbancollection.com

Facility Code F-162115

CTRICAL: TECH( 0,00
CUSTOMER STATES THAT PASS REAR TIRE. IS LOW, BUT ALSO
BEEN HAVE PROBLEM WITH TIRE. SENSOR SYSTEM LAMP. BEING te FOR
SEVERAL YEARS
all tires low
low tire pressure adjust pressures
PARTS «+2 +-QTY=++FP-NOMBER=-«----2-2--- + DESCRIPTION~~~--2-++-++200-00e2 UNIT PRICE-
4 -56029481-AB SENSOR TI 08037155 79 363.16
TOTAL ~ PARTS: 363.16

JSOBH 1 TOTALS-=++---2-se 5-2 ebce sees een seaee se eceeeeee ee sueseeweneee

JOB# 2 CHARGES-
JH 2-18CI 115.25
ON
update a17 modules 4
PARTS ~~ ~~~ + QTY---FP-NUMBER UNIT PRICE.
1 6804895: 80 27.80
TOTAL - paris 27.80
JOBH# °2TOTALS---.-
115.25
Xe 27.8
|JOB# 3. CHARGES-

LABOR
Ot 3, 13CHZ ENGINE. COOLING 2 173.74
SISTER ‘STATES THAT TRUCK WILL. NOT WARN we
leaking
replace water-pump._ 11.5. f
PARTS ~~~ === ‘QTY- -+FP-NUMBER: +++ *DESCRIPTION= «-+.0is «ee sve ecce oa ‘UNIT PRICE-
1 53022: PUMP WATE 07042001 198.00 198.00
TOTAL, ~ PARTS 198.00

JOB# 3 TOTALS:

‘The Reynolds and Reynolds Comisany enAINTSII4e: CC60B129 Q (09/4)

JOB# 4 CHARGES:
ERE ss ne yt learn Al iS ERE sn SCO
PAGE t OF 3 CUSTOMER COPY. [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] 12:31pm
SERVICE INVOICE

COSTONERT AES RG, WVOGEDAE GOERS
155485 DAVID MILLER 12183| 9091 01/29/15 kucs133165
SSE RR TOTES TREE al STOCKS
EDWARD LENNON enmene 2
128 N GLENGARRY RD
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 08/3EEP/CommanoeR/4wo ails “SELLING DEALER NO. PRODUCTION DATE
TIBHG4BKI8C1I59091
ETERS: coe cae
01/28/15
ESDRCE ROE SSNESS FONE COTES REPIRS PROPERY COMPLETED KGHEGHED BY LENGE OUT
313-268-9872 x MO: 107773
908 1 ‘CHARGES; LIMITED WARRANTY

We guarantee our service work
for 12 months or 12,000 miles,
whichever comes first. If our re-
pair or replacement fails in normal
‘service within that period, we'll fix
it free of charge during normal
business hours - parts-and labor.

ATTENTION

“This repair facility charges. for
labor utilizing the flat rate hours
published either by the manufac-
turer in its labor time study guide:
or by a recognized industry time
study guide which reflects an
average time requirement for the
performance: of specific vehicle
repairs. Therefore, the flat rate
hours charged may be: either:
more or less than the actual clock.
time in any given instance.”

‘STATEMENT OF DISCLAIMER

The factory: warranly constitutes all_of the:
warranties with respect to the sale of this
item/items. The Seller hereby expressly dis-
claims all warranties, either express or
implied, including any implied warranty of
merchantability or fitness for a. particular
purpose. Seller neither assumes nor autho-.
izes any other person to assume for it any
fiabilty in connection with the sale of this
item/items.

‘CUSTOMER SIGNATURE

x

PLAINTIFF’S
{ EXHIBIT ©

‘SF 675957 Q.-(oa/iay
EXHIBIT 10.W



 



Exhibit 10w.



BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB



SUMMARY OF 2005 BOARD OF DIRECTORS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAM




CASH COMPENSATION PROGRAM


 


			
	
    Annual Retainer
    		
    $45,000
    
	
    Board Meeting Fee
    		
    $2,000
    
	
    Committee Meeting Fee
    		
    $2,000
    
	
    Committee Chairman Annual Retainer
    		
    $10,000
    




STOCK-BASED PROGRAM



As of the date of the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders, each Director receives a 2,500 share option grant.
The grant vests 25% per year. On February 1, each Director
also receives an annual grant of 2,000 share units that are
credited to a deferred compensation account until the Director
ceases to serve as a Director. The value of the grant is
determined by the value of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Stock.




DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM



Twenty-five percent of the annual retainer will
be deferred into a deferred share unit account until the
director has met the ownership guidelines of 5,000 shares or
deferred units. Additionally, all or a portion of compensation
may be deferred until retirement or a date specified by the
Director. The election to defer is made in the preceding
calendar year in which the compensation is earned. A Director
may elect for deferred funds to be paid in a lump sum or in a
number of installments.




The investment options are:



     
-a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill equivalent fund




     
-a fund based on the return of the Company’s
invested cash




     
-deferred share units which are based on the
return of Bristol-Myers Squibb common stock





CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION
PROGRAM


     
This program provides for a $1 million death
benefit for each active or retired Director covered. Upon the
death of a Director, the Company donates half of the benefit to
one or more charitable organizations designated by the Director.
The remaining half is contributed to the Bristol-Myers Squibb
Foundation.




RETIREMENT PROGRAM


     
As of March 5, 1996, the Board ended future
accruals under the Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors
and vested eligible directors regardless of their years of
service in retirement benefits accrued to date.
§ 26.30-10 Stowage. ( a ) The approved buoyant work vests shall be stowed separately from the regular stowage of required lifesaving equipment.
#### HUBERT SAN GIULIANO, PLAINTIFF, v. THE BLACK AND WHITE CAB COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Decided May 4, 1929.

*449Before G-ummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

For the rule, *Salvatore F. La Corte.*

*Contra, John A. Bernhard.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, a boy ten years of age, was crossing North avenue, in the town of Cranford, in a small wagon which he was propelling by one leg, the other leg being in the bottom of the wagon. The defendant company’s taxicab ran into the boy while he was crossing the street, inflicting the injuries to recover compensation for which the present suit is brought. The jury found a verdict in his favor and assessed his damages at $3. The plaintiff seeks to have this verdict set aside and a new trial ordered.

By its verdict the jury declared that the driver of the defendant’s cab was guilty of negligence causing the accident and that the boy did not contribute thereto by his own negligence. This is a necessary conclusion to be reached upon the finding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. If this finding is justified by the evidence, the award of $3 as compensation for the boy’s injuries is entirely without justification, in view of the medical testimony in the case; and the verdict ought to be set aside for that reason. The smallness of the award would seem to indicate that the jury had some doubt on the question of the defendant’s liability.

Our conclusion is that the rule to show cause should be made absolute and the case sent back to be tried *de novo.*
EXHIBIT 10.2

American Express Company (the "Company") maintains the American Express
Company Pay-for-Performance Deferral Program for senior management as
described below:

              DESCRIPTION OF PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE DEFERRAL PROGRAM

         The Pay-for-Performance Deferral Program permits eligible
participants to defer payment of their base salary, annual cash bonus or any
payouts in respect of the Company's portfolio grant program pursuant to the
Company's 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended; provided, however,
that generally, the maximum total amount that a participant may defer into his
or her deferral account from all sources under the deferral program in the
annual election period (historically held in December) is one times base
salary. The program annually credits interest equivalents to, or reduces the
value of, deferred amounts according to a schedule based on the reported
annual return on equity ("ROE") of the Company. The Compensation and Benefits
Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Compensation Committee") of the
Company may adjust the schedule, prospectively or retroactively, in its sole
discretion without a participant's prior consent or notice. In November 2004,
the Committee set the overall schedule of rates at which interest equivalents
are credited to deferred amounts, such that the rates for amounts deferred
beginning in 2005 range from 0% (if the Company's ROE for a given year is 1%)
to a maximum of 14% (if the Company's ROE for a given year is 25% or more).
Deferred balances are reduced in value if the annual ROE is zero or less for a
given year.

         If a participant elects to defer any compensation under the
Pay-for-Performance Deferral Program, he or she must defer such compensation
for at least five years. In the event a participant's employment by the
Company or any of its subsidiaries terminates prior to the end of the minimum
five-year deferral period for any reason other than retirement, disability or
death, then the participant's account is paid out in a lump sum with interest
equivalents credited or debited for the entire period of deferral at the
lesser of (i) the initial deferred amount credited or debited annually at the
ROE-based rate described above or (ii) the initial deferred amount credited
annually with the rate of return on the applicable five-year U.S. Treasury
note. In the event a participant's employment by the Company or any of its
subsidiaries terminates on or after the end of the minimum five-year deferral
period for any reason other than retirement, disability or death, then the
participant's account is paid out in a lump sum with interest equivalents
credited or debited annually using the ROE-based rate described above.

         The Committee may delay payments under the program until they are
fully deductible under Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.