alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013108EN.01000902.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/9

---

Order of the Court of 15 November 2012 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH v European Commission, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG, Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG

(Case C-145/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - State aid - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Opening of the formal investigation procedure - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 108/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Dammann de Chapto, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG, Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG (represented by: C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2012 in Case T-407/09 Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking, firstly, annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision contained in the letter of 29 July 2009 declaring that certain contracts concluded by the applicant concerning the sale of dwellings as part of the privatisation of public dwellings in Neubrandenburg do not come within the scope of Article 87(1) EC and, secondly, judgment establishing the Commission’s failure to act for the purposes of Article 232 EC in that the Commission failed to state its position on those contracts on the basis of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Infringement of Articles 263(4) and 265 TFEU and the right to an effective judicial remedy — Insufficient statement of reasons by the General Court

Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

| 2. | Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, la Commission européenne, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG et Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, la Commission européenne, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG et Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

1

---
Order filed July 24, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-00679-CR

CHRISTOPHER LEE STANLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 12

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1625671

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 

34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit #7.

The clerk of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 12 is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the 

original of State's Exhibit #7, on or before July 31, 2012. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, 

maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibit #7, to the clerk 

of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 12.

PER CURIAM
# C_2012032EN.01003802.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/38

---

Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)

(Case T-624/11)

2012/C 32/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, 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: Ensto Oy (Porvoo, Finland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2011 in case R 2535/2010-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2011 in case R 2535/2010-2; and

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

—

Order that the defendant to pay the costs.

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 figurative mark ‘ONESTO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No W00909305

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 1980242 of the figurative mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11; Community trade mark registration No 40600 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 11 and 16; Finish trade mark registration No 218071 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the community trade mark application

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 erroneously found that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.

Pleas in law:

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff/Respondent, Criminal No. 15-cr-20089-3 

 Civil No. 19-cv-12017 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

D3, JAMAR HARRIS., 

 Defendant/Petitioner. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order entered and filed on September 30, 

2019, Defendant/Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED 

and judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff/Respondent. 

 DAVID J. WEAVER 

 CLERK OF COURT 

 By: s/Holly A. Monda 

 Deputy Clerk 

Approved: 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

United States District Judge 

Dated: October 1, 2019 

Flint, Michigan
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DETROIT OFFICE 

SHEILA REED, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 2:15-cv-11808-DPH-MKM 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Hood 

 ) Magistrate Judge Majzoub 

MIDLAND CREDIT ) 

MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT 

By agreement, the parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their respective 

attorneys, state as follows: 

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

hereby stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action should be dismissed. 

2. The parties, by agreement, respectfully request that this case be dismissed with 

prejudice and without costs to any party, all costs having been paid and all matters in 

controversy for which this action was brought having been fully settled, 

compromised and adjourned. 

Date: October 29, 2015 

For Plaintiff, 

Sheila Reed 

 /s David M. Marco 

SMITHMARCO, P.C. 

20 South Clark Street, Suite 2120 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: (312) 546-6539 

Facsimile: (888) 418-1277

E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com 

For Defendant, 

Midland Credit Management, Inc. 

 /s with consent Aaron L. Vorce 

Dykema Gossett PLLC 

201 Townsend St., Suite 900 

Lansing MI 48933 

Telephone: (517) 374-9104 

Facsimile: (517) 374-9191

E-mail: avorce@dykema.com 
2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DETROIT OFFICE 

SHEILA REED, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 2:15-cv-11808-DPH-MKM 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Hood 

 ) Magistrate Judge Majzoub 

MIDLAND CREDIT ) 

MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT 

Pursuant to settlement, this case is dismissed with prejudice, without costs to either 

party. 

s/Denise Page Hood 

Hon. Denise Page Hood

 United States District Judge 

 

Dated: October 29, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT (4)(h)


                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                              M&T CAPITAL TRUST IV

        THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of M&T Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") is being
duly executed and filed by The Bank of New York (Delaware), a Delaware banking
corporation, as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.).

        1.      Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is "M&T
Capital Trust IV".

        2.      Delaware Trustee. The name and address of the trustee of the
Trust in the State of Delaware are The Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay
Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.

        3.      Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective on
July 7, 2003.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the sole trustee of the
Trust, has executed this Certificate of Trust.

                                 The Bank of New York (Delaware), not in
                                 its individual capacity, but solely as trustee

                                 By:    /s/ Michael Santino
                                        -----------------------------
                                 Name:  Michael Santino
                                 Title: Senior Vice President
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Shanice Foster, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed driving, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered July 1, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>The misdemeanor information charging defendant with unlicensed driving (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 509[1]) was not jurisdictionally defective. Sworn police allegations that at a specified time and street location, defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle, and that a computer check run by the officer of the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that defendant's license was suspended for failure to answer a New York summons, were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish the elements of the offense, including that defendant was not "duly licensed" to operate the vehicle she was driving (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 509[1];<a href="../2009/2009_06587.htm" target="_blank"><i> see also People v Chatelain</i>, 65 AD3d 930</a> [2009], <i>lv denied </i>14 NY3d 886 [2010]; <a href="../2008/2008_05827.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Pate</i>, 52 AD3d 1118</a> [2008],<i> lv denied </i>11 NY3d 740 [2008]). No additional evidentiary details were required for the People's pleading to provide "adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke h[er] protection against double jeopardy" (<a href="../2014/2014_02103.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Kasse</i>, 22 NY3d 1142</a>, 1143 [2014]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 28, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending November 25, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesRegions Financial Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama  -- commenter's request for reconsideration of the Board's approval of the application to acquire AmSouth Bancorporation and its subsidiary bank, AmSouth Bank.					-Denied, November 22, 2006 					

EnforcementUnited National Corporation, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, First Premier Bank, and Premier Bankcard, Inc.  -- written agreement dated September 23, 2003, terminated November 17, 2006.					-Announced, November 22, 2006 					

Regulations And PoliciesElectronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E)  -- final amendments to Regulation E and its official staff commentary regarding consumer authorization requirements for electronic collection of returned item fees (Docket No. R-1265).					-Approved, November 22, 2006 					Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E)  -- publication for comment of an amendment to create an exception from the terminal receipt requirement for small-dollar transactions (Docket No. R-1270).					-Approved, November 22, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: November 30, 2006
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditor
<PAGE>




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Lexington B & L Financial Corp.
Lexington, Missouri 64067


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Lexington B & L Financial Corp. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-29807),
of our report dated November 22, 2000, accompanying the consolidated financial
statements incorporated by reference in Lexington B & L Financial Corp.'s Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2000.



/s/ Moore, Horton & Carlson, P.C.


Mexico, Missouri
December 27, 2000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KATHLEEN MARALASON, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-11666 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the Court's “Opinion and Order” dated September 28, 2016, 

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

Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Kathleen Maralason. 

Dated: September 28, 2016 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 

 I hereby certify that a copy of this Judgment was served upon counsel of record on this 

date. 

 

Dated: September 28, 2016 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

 

2:15-cv-11666-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 09/28/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 811
&-JD 7;-J 

RULt 2:7 - Provision of Sampling and Testing F~cilities. A person operating 

or using an1 article, machine, equipment or other contrivance for . . . 

which these rules require a permit shall provide and maintain such 

s~r.;pling c•nd t!!Sting fudlities as ~peclfied in the Authority to 

Construct or Permit to Oper~te.
###### Editorial Note on Part 162

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 162.017-4 Inspections and testing.

Pressure-vacuum relief valves may be inspected and tested at the plant of the manufacturer. An inspector may conduct such tests and examinations as may be necessary to determine compliance with this specification.

[56 FR 35827, July 29, 1991]
#### § 188.10-6 Captain of the Port.

This term means an officer of the Coast Guard designated as such by the Commandant and who, under the superintendence and direction of the Coast Guard District Commander, gives immediate direction to Coast Guard law enforcement activities within his assigned area. In addition, the District Commander shall be the Captain of the Port with respect to remaining areas in his district not assigned to officers designated by the Commandant as Captain of the Port.
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-11, PageID.417   Filed 01/09/17   Page 1 of 2

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-11, PageID.418   Filed 01/09/17   Page 2 of 2
# C_2014009EN.01001601.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-587/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Establishing a company in certain third countries - Soft loans - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)

2014/C 9/24

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 on the State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of audi alteram partem — Res judicata — Principle of proportionality — De minimis Regulation

Italy

Commission

audi alteram partem

Res judicata

De minimis

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARL ARNOLD,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-11340

v.

HON. AVERN COHN

STEVE RIVARD, et al.; 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS DUPLICATIVE TO CASE NO.15-10608

AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO RETURN THE FILING FEE

I.

This is a prisoner civil right case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As will be explained,

the complaint is duplicative of a complaint previously filed by plaintiff. Accordingly, the

complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk will be directed to return the

filing fee to plaintiff.

II.

On April 10, 2015, plaintiff filed the complaint in this case. He names Steve

Rivard, Corizon Health Service, Inc., and three doctors, Dr. Hearing, Dr. Patel, and Dr.

Scabbo as defendants. Plaintiff claims that he has been denied proper treatment for his

mental health problems.

On February 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an identical complaint against the same

defendants and raising the same claims. It remains pending before another judge in

this district. Arnold v. Rivard, et. al., 15-10608 (E.D. Mich.). 

As a general rule, when duplicative lawsuits are pending in separate federal

courts, “the entire action should be decided by the court in which an action was first

2:15-cv-11340-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 07/24/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 75
filed.” Smith v. S.E.C., 129 F. 3d 356, 361 (6th Cir.1997). A duplicative suit is one in

which the issues “have such an identity that a determination in one action leaves little or

nothing to be determined in the other.” Id. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has

held that a district court “has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss

litigation or abstain in order to avoid duplicative proceedings.” In re Camall Co., 16 F.

App’x 403, 408 (6th Cir. 2001)(citing In Re White Motor Credit, 761 F.2d 270, 274–75

(6th Cir. 1985)). 

III.

Here, the complaint in this case is clearly duplicative of plaintiff’s prior complaint. 

Indeed, the complaints appear to be identical. It also appears that plaintiff did not intend

to file a second complaint. Rather, he submitted copies of his original complaint in order

to cure a deficiency in his first case where he had not submitted sufficient copies for

service. The Clerk apparently mistook the copies for a new case.

Under these circumstances, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk of the Court is also DIRECTED to return the $ 400.00 filing fee submitted by

plaintiff in this case. See e.g. Ahmad v. Grant, No. 10-12644, 2010 WL 2756499, at *2

(E.D. Mich. July 12, 2010).

SO ORDERED. 

S/Avern Cohn

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 24, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

2

2:15-cv-11340-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 07/24/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 76
§ 193.50-20 Semi-portable fire extinguishers. ( a ) The frame or support of each semi-portable fire extinguisher required by Table 193.50-10(a) of this subpart must be welded or otherwise permanently attached to a bulkhead or deck.
( b ) If an approved semi-portable fire extinguisher has wheels and is not required by Table 193.50-10(a) of this subpart, it must be securely stowed when not in use to prevent it from rolling out of control under heavy sea conditions.
( c ) Semi-portable extinguishers must be fitted with suitable hose and nozzle, or other practicable means, so that all areas of the space can be protected.
[CGD 77-039, 44 FR 34133, June 14, 1979, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48304, July 22, 2016]