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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Big Guy’s Pinball, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 14-14185

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Jimmy Lipham,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015, the Court held a telephone conference. 

Attending were Robert Farr representing Big Guy’s Pinball (“BGP”) and Eric Grimm

representing Mr. Lipham. 

Based on the discussion, the Court orders:

1. BGP may not file a motion to strike answer or affirmative defenses at this

juncture; the Court will revisit later.

2. Mr. Lipham is ordered to obtain proper documentation from Software

Freedom Conservancy that supports its copyright in QEMU. Mr. Lipham

will report in writing to Mr. Farr and the Court by August 21, 2015, with the

supporting documentation. The report to the Court will also outline

Software Freedom Conservancy’s interest in intervening in this claim if it is

the copyright holder. The plan of the Court would be for Software

Freedom Conservancy and its counsel, and the parties and counsel in this

case, to discuss the possibility of resolving this case before there is any

intervention.

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 43 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 509
3. The Court will hold a status conference on Monday, August 31, 2015 at

9:30 am. The Court will initiate the call.

IT IS ORDERED. 

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: August 5, 2015

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

August 5, 2015.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 43 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 510
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

D’ANDRE ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff, No. 15-10294

v. District Judge David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

A. HOFFMAN, FLAUGHER, O’NIEZEL,

JEFF STOLTENBER, ROZIER, PUTNAM

WELTERE, VITTITOW, TURNER, 

BURROWS, DONALD RICUMSTRICT,

O’BELL T. WINN, FREED, JAMES 

ZUMMER, TOM FINCO, PAYNE, ROBERT

NORTON, ROPELIJI, KARL LNU, 

THOMAS LNU, and VANSURMAN,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to “prohibit Fred Govern from handling

Plaintiff’s incoming legal mail from the courts.” [Doc. #12]. Fred Govern, a Michigan

Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) Employee at the Marquette Branch Prison, is not a

Defendant in this case, nor is the MDOC. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction

over Mr. Govern. If Plaintiff believes his mail is being mishandled, his remedy at this

point lies within the MDOC’s grievance system.

-1-

2:15-cv-10294-DML-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 200
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #12] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: April 13, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

April 13, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager 

-2-

2:15-cv-10294-DML-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 201
§ 190.15-15 Ventilation for living spaces and quarters. ( a ) All living spaces shall be adequately ventilated in a manner suitable to the purpose of the space.
( b ) All spaces used as quarters for crewmembers and scientific personnel shall be ventilated by a mechanical system unless it can be shown that a natural system will provide adequate ventilation. By a natural system is meant those spaces so located that the windows, ports, skylights, etc., and doors to passageways can be kept open and thereby provide adequate ventilation under all ordinary conditions of weather.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.064-2 Types and models. ( a ) *Types.* Water safety buoyant devices covered by this subpart shall be of two general types, viz, those intended to be worn on the body and those intended to be thrown.
( b ) *Models.* Water safety buoyant devices may be of different models which incorporate characteristics considered valuable for safety in various fields of water sports or boating activities.
( c ) *Sizes.* Water safety buoyant devices designed to be worn shall be of sizes suitable for adults or children, as intended and marked on the device. Water safety buoyant devices intended to be thrown in water shall be of a minimum size intended for adults.
( d ) *Dimensions.* A foam cushion designed to be thrown must be 2 inches or more in thickness and must have 225 or more square inches of top surface area.
[CGFR 64-30, 29 FR 7388, June 6, 1964, as amended by CGD 73-246R, 39 FR 36967, Oct. 16, 1974]
#### Jacob L. Haas *et al., Respondents, v.*Edwin Roat, *Impleaded, etc., Appellant*.

Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

Haight, J., not sitting.
2:14-mj-30636-DUTY Doc # 8 Filed 12/24/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 12
2:14-mj-30636-DUTY Doc # 8 Filed 12/24/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 13
2:14-mj-30636-DUTY Doc # 8 Filed 12/24/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 14
2:14-mj-30636-DUTY Doc # 8 Filed 12/24/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 15
2:14-mj-30636-DUTY Doc # 8 Filed 12/24/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 16
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.139-2 Incorporation by reference. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76705 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Publishing, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org .* ( 1 ) 2010 FTP Code, International Code for the Application of Fire Test Procedures, 2010 (Resolution MSC.307(88)), 2012 Edition (“FTP Code”), IBR approved for § 164.139-3(a).
( 2 ) Resolution A.754(18), Recommendation on Fire Resistance Tests for “A”, “B” and “F” Class Divisions, adopted 4 November 1993 (“IMO Resolution A.754(18)”), IBR approved for § 164.139-3(a).
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0146

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM115AD

605-35-001 --- 1/31/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2265 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Magna Water District 

water reuse and groundwater recharge project, and for 

other purposes. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2265 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Magna Water District 

3 Water Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MAGNA WATER DISTRICT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h 

7 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. MAGNA WATER DISTRICT WATER REUSE AND 

9 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT, UTAH. 

10 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera11 tion with the Magna Water District, Utah, may partici12 pate in the design, planning, and construction of perma13 nent facilities needed to establish recycled water distribu14 tion and wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities 

15 that will be used to provide recycled water in the Magna 

16 Water District. 

17 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.— 

18 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of 

19 the capital cost of the project described in subsection 

20 (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of 

21 the project. 

22 ‘‘(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Each cost in23 curred by the Magna Water District after January 

24 1, 2003, relating to any capital, planning, design, 

25 permitting, construction, or land acquisition (includ26 ing the value of reallocated water rights) for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2265 RFS 

1 project described in subsection (a) shall be credited 

2 towards the non-Federal share of the costs of the 

3 project. 

4 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

5 shall not be used for operation or maintenance of the 

6 project described in subsection (a). 

7 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

9 $12,000,000.’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec11 tions in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authoriza12 tion and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) 

13 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

14 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge 

project, Utah.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

y1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141193

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141193 COA: 295328 Wayne CC: 03-012024 TYRONE ANTHONY BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 15, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
G-21 Penalty Rate Increase Sample

Notice of Changes to Your Interest Rates

You have triggered the Penalty APR of 28.99%. Effective 5/10/07, we will apply the penalty rate to 

all balances on this account. We may keep your APRs at this level indefinitely.
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

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

      ( print page 20339)    

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 16th meeting of the American Health Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

# DATES:

May 22, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern].

# ADDRESSES:

Mary C. Switzer Building, (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​healthrecords/​*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Workgroup will continue its discussion on ways to achieve widespread adoption of certified EHRs, minimizing gaps in adoption among providers.

                    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to:                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​healthrecords/​ehr_​instruct.html*.                

Dated: April 16, 2007.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 07-2005 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF
HOMELAND SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATION
 Name, Address And
    
    Place OfHeadquarters
    
    FormationSafety & Ecology Holdings Corporation
    
    Nevada, USA2800 Solway Road 
Knoxville, TN 37931NTG Management Corp.
    
    Delaware, USA7 West Cross Street 
Hawthorne, NY 10532Polimatrix, Inc.
    
    Virginia, USA1005 North Glebe Road 
Suite 550
Arlington, VA 22201Fiducia Real Estate Solutions, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA4601 North Fairfax Drive 
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22203
*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 21, 2005*

Decided July 21, 2005

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1052

HOMER CALHOUN, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Central

District of Illinois

No. 03-1029

Michael M. Mihm, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Homer Calhoun, Jr. is an African-American man who was employed at

Mitsubishi Motors’ plant in Normal, Illinois from September 2000 until he was fired

in April 2003. Calhoun filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.,

alleging that he was harassed and eventually fired because of racial discrimination. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mitsubishi for a number of

reasons, including that some of Calhoun’s claims were untimely and others were

barred by a settlement agreement in a previous class action lawsuit, that he failed

to present any direct evidence of discrimination, and that he failed to establish a

prima facie case of discrimination under the indirect burden-shifting method

described in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-1052 Page 2

Calhoun appeals, but his brief is simply a photocopy of his complaint in the

district court with a new cover page. Even a pro se litigant like Calhoun must

identify a basis for overturning the district court’s judgment and support his

argument with citations to the record and relevant legal authority. See Anderson v.

Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). Calhoun has

provided no cognizable argument and, accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Nursing Research; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel, March 5, 2007, 
5:30 p.m. to March 5, 2007, 6 p.m., Crowne Plaza Hotel, 8777 Georgia 
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910 which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 30, 2007, FR 07-359.
    The meeting date was changed from March 5, 2007 to April 11, 2007. 
The meeting begins at 7:30 a.m. and ends at 3 p.m. The meeting location 
changed from Crowne Plaza Hotel, Silver Spring to 6701 Democracy Blvd, 
Bethesda. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: April 2, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1734 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________________________________________________

FRANK ARTHUR CROWELL,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 15-11243

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s “Opinion and Order Denying the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus and Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability or Leave to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis on Appeal” dated January 19, 2016,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Respondent Jeffrey Woods and against Petitioner Frank Arthur Crowell. Dated at

Detroit, Michigan, this 19th day of January 2016.

 DAVID J. WEAVER

 CLERK OF THE COURT

 S/Lisa Wagner

By: Lisa Wagner, Case Manager

 to Judge Robert H. Cleland

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\14-11243.CROWELL.judgment.jah.wpd

2:15-cv-11243-RHC-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 01/19/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 776
#### § 167.05-15 Coast Guard District Commander.

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

[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51216, Sept. 30, 1997]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VICTOR WILSON,

Plaintiff, Case Number 15-10693

Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

v. 

COUNTY OF WAYNE, CITY OF DETROIT,

and DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS

Presently before the Court is the report issued on April 17, 2015 by Magistrate Judge David

R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court dismiss sua sponte the

plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Although the report stated that

the parties to this action could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days

of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections

to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

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

the Court dismiss sua sponte the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice [dkt. #10] is ADOPTED.

2:15-cv-10693-DML-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 05/06/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 76
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the

plaintiff’s motion to certify class [dkt. #7] is moot.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to certify class [dkt. #2] is DENIED as

moot.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 5, 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 May 5, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-2-

2:15-cv-10693-DML-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 05/06/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 77
# C_2012025EN.01005101.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2011 — Birkhoff v Commission

(Case T-10/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Child suffering from an infirmity preventing her from earning a livelihood - Refusal to extend payment of the allowance)

(2012/C 25/98)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggars, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case F-60/09 Birkhoff v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case F-60/09 Birkhoff v Commission (not yet published in the ECR); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case F-60/09 Birkhoff v Commission (not yet published in the ECR);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 3. | Orders that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

---