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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JIMMIE WHITE, II, and WANDA WHITE,

Petitioner, 

v.

DAVID M. LAWSON, ET AL.,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-10266

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Wanda White has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 & 2242, alleging that her son, Jimmie White, II, is currently unconstitutionally

detained in the custody of the United States Marshal Service. Because Wanda White

has not established that she is authorized to file a petition on her son’s behalf, the Court

will dismiss the petition without prejudice. 

An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be filed by one person on behalf

of another. 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (“Application for writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing

signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in

his behalf.”). However, “next friend” status will not be granted automatically. Whitmore

v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). Two “firmly rooted prerequisites” must be

satisfied before “next friend” status will be conferred. Id. First, “a ‘next friend’ must

provide an adequate explanation – such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or

other disability – why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to

prosecute the action.” Id. Second, “the ‘next friend’ must be truly dedicated to the best

2:15-cv-10266-GCS-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 14
interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Id. Courts impose these

restrictions on who may act as a “next friend” because “[i]t was not intended that the writ

of habeas corpus should be availed of, as matter of course, by intruders or uninvited

meddlers, styling themselves next friends.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 

In this case, Wanda White has offered no adequate explanation as to why her

son would not be able to pursue a habeas petition on his own behalf. The Court cannot

conclude that Wanda White is not an “uninvited meddler[],” id., or that “extraordinary

circumstances” exist to warrant conferring “next friend” status on her. Herrera v.

Redman, 1989 WL 15966 * 1 (6th Cir. 1989). Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to

address this petition. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 166 (dismissing petition for lack of

jurisdiction where individual lacked standing to pursue habeas petition on prisoner’s

behalf). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Dated: February 11, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

February 11, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also

on Wanda White, 6032 Chamberlain, Romulus, MI 48174.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

2:15-cv-10266-GCS-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 15
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.136-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of fire doors as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Products approved under these requirements may be used where fire doors of the same class are required in domestic vessels.
#### § 201.159 Decisions; contents and service.

All initial, recommended, tentative, and final decisions, whether rendered orally or in writing shall include a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or bases therefor, upon the material issues presented, as well as a statement of the appropriate rule, order, sanction, relief to be imposed, or the denial thereof. A copy of each decision when issued or when transcribed if orally rendered (and all orally presented decisions shall be stenographically recorded) shall be served on the parties to the proceeding, and furnished to interested persons upon request.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.4

                                SIPEX CORPORATION


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Sipex Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip A. Kagel,
Senior Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Phillip A. Kagel
--------------------
Phillip A. Kagel
Senior Vice President, Finance
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
April 30, 2003
# C_2008106EN.01003701.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/37

---

Corrigendum to public holidays in 2008

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 70 of 15 March 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 70 of 15 March 2008

(2008/C 106/15)

On page 13, under ‘Belgique/België’:

for:

‘... 2.11, 11.11, ...’,

read:

‘... 2.11, 10.11, 11.11, ...’.

under ‘Nederland’:

for:

‘1.1, 24.3, 1.5, 2.5, 5.5, 12.5, ...’,

read:

‘1.1, 24.3, 30.4, 1.5, 12.5, ...’.

---
# C_2011347EN.01001301.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/13

---

Action brought on 16 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-473/11)

2011/C 347/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by applying a special VAT scheme for travel agents as provided for in resolution No B71/2260 of March 1971, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43, 96, 98 and 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by applying a special VAT scheme for travel agents as provided for in resolution No B71/2260 of March 1971, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43, 96, 98 and 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (1);

1

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the Netherlands has failed to implement the special VAT scheme for travel agents. This is apparent from Decision No B71/2260 of 22 March 1971, as last amended, which clearly conflicts with the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
#### § 28.135 Lifesaving equipment markings.

(a) Except as provided in [paragraph (d)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.135#p-28.135(d)) of this section, lifesaving equipment carried aboard a vessel pursuant to the requirements of this subpart or part 25, subpart 25.25 of this chapter must be marked as specified in table [28.135](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.135).

(b) Lettering used in lifesaving equipment markings must be in block capital letters.

(c) Retroreflective markings required by this section must be with material approved under part 164, subpart 164.018 of this chapter. The arrangement of the retroreflective material must meet IMO Resolution A.658(16).

(d) A wearable personal flotation device must be marked with the name of either the vessel, the owner of the device, or the individual to whom it is assigned.

Table [28.135](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.135)—Lifesaving Equipment Markings

| Item | Markings Required | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Name of vessel | Retroreflective material |
| Wearable personal flotation device (Type I, II, III, or wearable Type V); Immersion suit or exposure suit | See [§ 28.135(d)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.135#p-28.135(d)) | Type I or Type II. |
| Ring life buoy | X | Type II. |
| Inflatable liferaft | See note | See note. |
| Inflatable buoyant apparatus | See note | See note. |
| Life float | X | Type II. |
| Buoyant apparatus | X | Type II. |
| Auxiliary craft | X | Type II. |
| EPIRB | X | Type II. |

Note:

No marking other than that provided by the manufacturer and the servicing facility is required.

[CGD 88-079, [56 FR 40393](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-40393), Aug. 14, 1991; [56 FR 49822](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-49822), Oct. 1, 1991, as amended by CGD 95-012, [60 FR 48048](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/60-FR-48048), Sept. 18, 1995; USCG-2014-0688, [79 FR 58279](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/79-FR-58279), Sept. 29, 2014]
§ 189.25-50 Inspector not limited. ( a ) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as limiting the inspector from making such tests or inspections as he or she deems necessary to be assured of the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1118, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3225, Jan. 21, 2022]
#### § 201.21 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16823-16824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1659]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on March 15, 2007, a proposed consent 
decree in United States v. Streich Bros., Inc., Civil Action No. C07-
5120RJB, as lodged with the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Washington.
    In this action the United States, State of Washington, Puyallup 
Tribe of Indians and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe sought natural resource 
damages for releases of hazardous substances into Commencement Bay, 
Washington. The decree provides that defendant will pay trustees 
$181,948.0 for natural resource damages and $20,189.15 in damage 
assessment costs.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the

[[Page 16824]]

date of this publication comments relating to the decree. Comments 
should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23535641404c4e4e464d570e4646500d464d5147635650474c490d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29595c4b4a4644444c475d044c4c5a074c475b4d695c5a4d4643074e465f">[email protected]</span></a> or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States 
v. Streich Bros., Inc., Civil Action No. C07-5120RJB, D.J. Ref. 90-11-
1-1049/8.
    The decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101. During the public 
comment period, the consent decree, may also be examined on the 
following Department of Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the decree may also be obtained by 
mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request 
to Tonia Fleetwood (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8afee5e4e3eba4ece6efeffefde5e5eecafff9eee5e0a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="daaeb5b4b3bbf4bcb6bfbfaeadb5b5be9aafa9beb5b0f4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>), fax no. (202) 514-0097, 
phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the 
Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.15 
(25 cents per page reproduction costs) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, 
if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent 
Decree Library at the stated address.

Robert E. Maher, Jr.,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 07-1659 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2229]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Global Climate and Energy Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 21, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Global Climate and Energy Project 
(``GCEP'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the members of GCEP have, as of September 1, 2006, 
amended the agreement between them to extend the termination of the 
Project, which currently will terminate August 31, 2009.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project, and GCEP intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On March 12, 2003, GCEP filed the original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 4, 
2003 (68 FR 16552).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 24, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29353).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2229 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 28.1100 General. ( a ) As set forth in 46 U.S.C. 8103, a citizenship requirement, other than a requirement that applies to the master of a documented vessel, on commercial fishing vessels may be waived for unlicensed seamen when qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available. Under the provisions of this subpart, the Coast Guard approves or denies requests for a waiver of the citizenship requirement from owners, operators, or employers seeking to exceed the 25 percent limit applicable to unlicensed seamen aboard fishing industry vessels who are non-permanent resident aliens authorized for employment in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 *et seq.*).
( b ) This subpart does not apply to a fishing vessel fishing exclusively for highly migratory species (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802)).
( c ) The regulations in this subpart have preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field.
#### § 30.10-19 Coast Guard District Commander—TB/ALL.

The term *Coast Guard District Commander* means an officer of the Coast Guard designated as such by the Commandant to command all Coast Guard activities within his district which include the enforcement and administration of Subtitle II, Title 46, U.S. Code, Title 46 and Title 33, U.S. Code, and regulations issued under these statutes.

[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16657, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51197, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### In the Matter of Sarah M. Sandford to Vacate an Assessment, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131037 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, AFSCME COUNCIL 25, AFSCME LOCAL Justices 

41, and JAMES FULLER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

and 

ANNIERLY COOPER and SADIE ADAMS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 131037 

 COA: 257680 
 Wayne CC: 02-228994-CL

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 

judgment 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. 

d0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending January 27, 2007

|Filer              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------ | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|CENTRAL BANCOMPANY | * 3A3          | Central Bancompany, Inc., Jefferson City, Missouri, to acquire 100 percent of Twenty-First Century Financial Services Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire ONB Bank and Trust Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. | Newspaper:02/17/2007Federal Register:02/23/2007    
|Newspaper:         | 02/17/2007    
|Federal Register:  | 02/23/2007    
|FIRST BANK         | * Branch       | First Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, to establish a branch facility to be located at 23501 Cinco Ranch Boulevard, Suite K100, Katy, Texas.                                                                                      | Newspaper:02/06/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | 02/06/2007    
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable
|FIRST BANK         | * Branch       | First Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, to establish a branch facility to be located at 109 Ferrari Ranch Road, Lincoln, California.                                                                                               | Newspaper:02/06/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | 02/06/2007    
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|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
EX10.1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-82698 and 333-56040 pertaining to employee
benefit plans of Ciba Specialty Chemicals Holding Inc.) of our report dated
January 21, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ciba
Specialty Chemicals Holding Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for
the year ended December 31, 2004.



Ernst & Young Ltd






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/	 	
Cherrie Chiomento

Cherrie Chiomento	 	/s/	 	Martin Mattes

Martin Mattes








Zürich, Switzerland, February 1, 2005
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 30, 2006

Before

 Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAVAR HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 02 CR 1129

Joan B. Gottschall,

Judge.

O R D E R

After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005); United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir. 2003), the district

judge informed us that she would have imposed the same sentence on Lavar Harris

had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence is

within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. 

United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Harris contends that

Mykytiuk was wrongly decided, but does not identify any basis under the factors

outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to question the reasonableness of his sentence. Our

independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, therefore the

judgment is AFFIRMED.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53