alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20146 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

OCTAVEOUS MELVIN GORDON, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SUPPLEMENT HIS 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (ECF No. 38) 

 Defendant Octaveous Melvin Gordon is a federal prisoner incarcerated at FCI 

Greenville in Greenville, Illinois. On June 9, 2021, Gordon filed a motion for 

compassionate release from custody pesuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (See 

Mot., ECF No. 38) In his motion, Gordon seeks release based on his concerns about 

the COVID-19 pandemic and his underlying health conditions. (See id.) 

 As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently 

recognized, “when [a prisoner] has access to the COVID-19 vaccine,” the prisoner’s 

potential exposure to the virus while in custody “does not present an extraordinary 

and compelling reason warranting” release. United States v. Lemons, 15 F. 4th 747, 

751 (6th Cir. 2021). See also United States v. Traylor, --- F. 4th ---, 2021 WL 

5045703, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2021) (holding district court did not abuse its 

Case 2:15-cr-20146-MFL-MKM ECF No. 39, PageID.706 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

discretion when it denied a motion for compassionate release based on on prisoner’s 

underlying health conditions where defendant had been fully vaccinated). Thus, in 

order to fully evaluate Gordon’s motion, the Court requires additional information 

from him. The Court therefore DIRECTS Gordon, by no later than January 10, 

2022, to file a supplement with the Court that answers the following questions: 

1. Has a COVID-19 vaccaine been made available to prisoners genally at 

FCI Greenville? 

2. Have you been offered a COVID-19 vaccine? If so, which vaccine, and 

when was it offered to you? 

3. If a vaccine was offered to you, did you agree to be vaccinated, or did 

you reject the offer to be vaccinated? 

4. If you accepted the offer to be vaccinated, has the vaccine been 

administered to you? If so, how many doses of the vaccine have you 

received, and when were the doses administered? 

5. Finally, if you agreed to be vaccinated but have not yet been vaccinated, 

when will the vaccine be administered to you? 

Once the Court receives this supplemental information from Gordon, it will 

rule on his motion. If Gordon does not respond to this order by January 10, 2022, 

it will dismiss his motion without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: November 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cr-20146-MFL-MKM ECF No. 39, PageID.707 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on November 8, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9761 

Case 2:15-cr-20146-MFL-MKM ECF No. 39, PageID.708 Filed 11/08/21 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2325 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2325

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``Laredo Veterans 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LAREDO VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Laredo Veterans Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Laredo 
Veterans Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 35.01-35 Repairs and alterations to firefighting equipment—TB/ALL. ( a ) No extensive repairs or alterations, except in emergency, shall be made to any fire-extinguishing apparatus, or other appliance subject to inspection, without advance notice to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Such repairs or alterations shall so far as is practicable be made with materials and tested in the manner specified within the regulations in this subchapter and subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter for new construction.
( b ) Emergency repairs or alterations shall be reported as soon as practicable to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, where the vessel may call after such repairs are made.
**EXHIBIT 99.4**     For fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, KPMG LLP and its affiliateswere paid by Cameco Corporation and its subsidiaries the following fees:                       **% of**      **% of**       **Total**      **Total**   **2007**  **Fees**  **2006**  **Fees** **Audit Fees:**                Cameco and Canadian joint ventures $890,000   44.9% $834,000   39.8%Centerra and other subsidiaries  661,400   33.4%  895,200   42.7%             Total Audit Fees $1,551,400   78.3% $1,729,200   82.5%**Audit-Related Fees:**                Sarbanes-Oxley 404 scoping project $41,500   2.1% $90,000   4.3%Cameco consultative  31,500   1.5%  —   — Centerra consultative  153,900   7.8%  —   — Pensions  13,000   0.7%  8,500   0.4%Zircatec —  specified procedures  —   **—**   50,000   2.4%             Total Audit-Related Fees $239,900   12.1% $148,500   7.1%**Tax Fees:**                Compliance $130,400   6.6% $167,500   8.0%Planning and advice  58,800   3.0%  51,700   2.4%             Total Tax Fees $189,200   9.6% $219,200   10.4%**All Other Fees:**  —   —   —   —              **Total Fees** $1,980,500   100% $2,096,900   100%                   Pre-Approval Policies and ProceduresAs part of Cameco’s corporate governance practices, under Cameco’s audit committee charter, theaudit committee is required to pre-approve the audit and non-audit services performed by theexternal auditors. Unless a type of service which is to be provided by the external auditorsreceives general pre-approval, it requires specific pre-approval by Cameco’s audit committee oraudit committee chair, or in the absence of the audit committee chair, a member of the auditcommittee as designated by the audit committee. All pre-approvals granted pursuant to thedelegated authority must be presented by the member(s) who granted the pre-approvals to the fullaudit committee at its next meeting. The audit committee has adopted a written policy to provideprocedures to implement the foregoing principles.
*********************************************
Household Finance Corporation
Household Consumer Loan Corporation
Household Consumer Loan Trust 1996-1
*********************************************
                                                   Sum of 1/16/96 - 12/16
                                                     Distribution Dates




Ending Pool Principal Balance                           3,384,560,372.07
Series 1996-1 Participation Invested Amount               713,317,167.13
Seller Amount                                             938,413,608.19
Remittances on the Participation                          164,981,619.96
Optimum Monthly Principal                                 126,682,832.87
Accelerated Principal Payment                               1,466,236.49

Ending Class A Note Security Balance                      510,250,930.64
Ending Class B Note Security Balance                      136,244,640.00
Ending Certificate Security Balance                        25,455,360.00
Ending Overcollateralization Amount                        41,366,236.49

Ending Class A Adjusted Balance                           510,250,930.64
Ending Class B Adjusted Balance                           136,244,640.00
Ending Certficate  Adjusted Balance                        25,455,360.00
Ending Overcollateralization Amount                        41,366,236.49

Class A Interest Paid                                      24,083,815.44
Class B Interest Paid                                       6,063,270.77
Certificate Yield Paid                                      1,207,787.21

Class A Unpaid Interest                                             0.00
Class B Unpaid Interest                                             0.00
Cetificate Unpaid Yield                                             0.00

Class A Principal Paid                                    128,149,069.36
Class B Principal Paid                                              0.00
Certificate  Principal Paid                                         0.00
OC Principal Paid                                                   0.00

 Total Charge-Offs:                                                 0.00

Interest paid per $1,000 Class A                                   37.73
Principal paid per $1,000 Class A                                 200.73
Interest paid per $1,000 Class B                                   44.50
Interest paid per $1,000 Class B                                    0.00
Yield Paid per $1000 Certificate                                   47.45
Principal Paid per $1000 Certificate                                0.00
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: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending April 22, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

DEBORAH A. BETTY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 15-CV-10734-DT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment entered this date,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be, and hereby is

GRANTED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Dated: March 21, 2016 S/Lisa G Wagner 

LISA G. WAGNER, CASE MANAGER AND

DEPUTY CLERK TO THE HONORABLE

ROBERT H. CLELEND 

2:15-cv-10734-RHC-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 922
88° W. 86° W. 84° W. 82° W. 80° W. 78° W. 76° W. 74° W.

32° N.

34° N.

36° N.

38° N.

40° N.

42° N.

32° N.

34° N.

36° N.

38° N.

40° N.

42° N.

88° W. 86° W. 84° W. 82° W. 80° W. 78° W.

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010−5152

DELAWARE

OHIO

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA

INDIANA

KENTUCKY

VIRGINIA

NEW YORK

MARYLAND

PENNSYLVANIA NEW

JERSEY

TENNESSEE

ALABAMA

WEST

VIRGINIA

 Southern 

Tennessee

Coal Field

Main

Bituminous

field

Northern

West Virginia

Coal Field

Southern

West Virginia 

Coal Field 

Eastern Kentucky

Coal Field

Pennsylvania Anthracite region

Black Warrior

field Cahaba field

Lookout Mountain field

Sand Mountain field

Upper Potomac

field (W. Va.)

Southwest Virginia

Coal Field

North Central field

Northern Appalachian

coal region

Coosa field

Northern

Tennessee

Coal Field

 Lower Youghiogheny basin (Md.)

Castleman basin (Md.)

Georges Creek basin (Md.)

Broad Top

field

 Upper Youghiogheny basin (Md.)

Southern

field

Eastern

Middle

field

Northern

field

Western

Middle

field

Western

Northern

field

 

Central Appalachian

coal region

Southern Appalachian

coal region

Sharon

Jackson

Pocahontas

Anthracite 

Low–volatile bituminous

Medium– and high–volatile bituminous

EXPLANATION

Boundary between coal regions

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

0 50 100 150 KILOMETERS

Figure 2. Location of and coal rank in the northern, central, and southern Appalachian coal regions, the Pennsylvania Anthracite region, and designated coal fields. The boundary 

between the northern and central coal regions was adapted from the hinge line of Arkle (1974) and is based on the approximate position of a hinge line separating the northern 

Appalachian coal region areas containing the younger (upper Middle to Upper Pennsylvanian) higher sulfur and higher ash coals typical of northern West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, 

and Pennsylvania, from the central Appalachian coal region containing areas of older (Lower to lower Middle Pennsylvanian) relatively low-sulfur and low-ash coals of southern 

West Virginia, western Virginia, and eastern Kentucky. The boundary between the central and the southern Appalachian coal regions is placed at the southern boundary margin of 

the Wartburg basin of Tennessee on the basis of structural and sedimentological continuity (Milici, 1974). The location of regional coal fields showing coal rank within the Appalachian basin is modified from Tully (1996).

 

0 25 50 75 100 MILES
2:14-cv-14278-AC-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 236
2:14-cv-14278-AC-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 237
2:14-cv-14278-AC-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 238
2:14-cv-14278-AC-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 01/28/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 239
# C_2011120EN.01001301.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/13

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-27/11 R)

(Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility)

2011/C 120/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 concerning State aid No MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 — Germany — WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows therefrom that there must be no new transactions involving Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG after 15 February 2011.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
EXHIBIT 32.5**Exhibit 32.5 Section 906 OF Sarbanes-Oxley Act – CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**SIPEX CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of Sipex Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for theperiod ended December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Ralph Schmitt, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit accompanying such Report and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.       /s/ Ralph Schmitt         Ralph Schmitt    Chief Executive Officer    June 22, 2007
PMN Substances

Sanitized
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SONIA BUTISTA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 3 26

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20130D03636 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’s Reply Brief first motion for extension of time

within which to file the brief until March 3 , 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO F ILE THE APPELL ANT ’S REPLY BR IEF WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Rub en P. Morales , the Appell ant ’s Attorney

,

prepare the Appell ant ’s reply brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 3

,

201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 nd day of February , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McCl ure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
#### § 174.250 Unrestricted service.

Each liftboat not limited to restricted service must comply with subpart C of this part in each condition of loading and operation.
# CIT Y O FTUPEL O JAC K REED , JR. , MAYO

R Novembe r21 , 201 1 :TOR1ATI0 N • OPERATION S



### ' 2 A U - 3 H Mr . Denni s DeVan y Chief , EA S & Domesti cAnalysi s Divisio n Offic e ofAviatio n Departmen t ofTransportatio n 120 0 NewJerse yAvenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Tupel o Regiona l Airpor t (TUP ) Docke t DOT-OST-2009-030 5 Dea rMr . DeVany : W e hav e reviewe d EA S proposal s submitte d unde rDocke t DOT-OST-2009-030 5 fro m SeaPor t Airline s Inc . an d Multi-Aero Inc. , db a Ai rChoic e On e fo rTupelo , Mississipp i an d determine d tha t the yd o not meet th e statutor yrequirement s of a twin-engin e aircraft . Furthennore , th e leve l of servic e wil l b e a grea t disadvantag e t o an yairlin e an d ou rairpor

t withou t suppor

t fro m Delt a Airline s throug h codeshar e an d join t ticke t pricing , allowin g passengers t o easil yflo wthroug h th e nationa l airport s system . W e appreciat e th e interes t ofthes e airlines , bu t d o no t endors e o rsuppor t thes e proposal s fo rsubsidize d essentia l ai rservic e t o th e communityof Tupelo , Mississippi . W e reques t tha t th e hold-i n orde rtha t prohibite d Mesab a & Pinnacl e Airline s db a Delt a Connectio n fro m terminatin g schedule d airlin e servic e t o Tupelo , Mississipp i remai n i n effect unti l furthe rnotice , o runti l suc h tim e a s a suitabl e replacemen t whic h satisfie s th e community' s need s ca n b e found . W e woul d like t o than k

yo u fo ryou rcooperatio n an d assistanc e i n thi s matter . Respectfully , /dac k Reed , Jr . < / Mayo r JRJ/se w

7 1 !-AS I IKO ^ SIKI I r • FO.S r

OMI t i ; BO X 14X5 ri)Pi:i.<) . Mi.ssissii'P i 38x0 2 IIH ? ri;i,l:l'HON I M 2 S4 I (i.S()' > • l-A X (i6 2 84 0 207 4
# C_2014159EN.01003701.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/37

---

Order of the General Court of 24 March 2014 — High Tech v OHIM — Vitra Collections (Shape of a chair)

(Case T-161/11) (1)

1

2014/C 159/50

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
§ 35.35-50 Termination of transfer operations—TB/ALL. ( a ) When transfer operations are completed the valves on cargo connections on the vessel shall be closed. The cargo connections shall be drained of cargo.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 30.01-3 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is 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 .* Also, it is available for inspection at the Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone 202-372-1405, and is available from the sources listed below.
( b ) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone 610-832-9585, *http://www.astm.org .* ( 1 ) ASTM D 323-94, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid Method), incorporation by reference approved for §§ 30.10-22; 30.10-59.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49226, Sept. 25, 2009, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60146, Sept. 30, 2013]
§ 196.15-15 Examination of boilers and machinery. ( a ) It shall be the duty of the chief engineer when he assumes charge of the boilers and machinery of a vessel to examine them thoroughly. If any parts thereof are in unsatisfactory condition, or if the safety-valve seals are broken, the fact shall immediately be reported to the master, owner, or agent, and the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
§ 249.9 American market participation. ( a ) Owners of vessels receiving ODS or Title XI vessel obligation guarantees, or their brokers, shall offer to the American marine insurance market the opportunity to compete for the placement of marine hull insurance on each vessel. Consistent with sound business judgment, owners will be expected to place their insurance with the American market to the maximum extent possible when the rates, terms and conditions offered by American underwriters are competitive with those offered by foreign underwriters. MARAD will make available a list of approved American underwriters and their capacities.
( b ) In the event that less than 50 percent of the placement is made with the American marine insurance market, the owners, or their brokers, shall file an affidavit confirming that the risk has been offered to a substantial portion of the American market. The affidavit shall list the American underwriters to which the risk was offered, and such underwriters shall account for at least 50 percent of the approved American market capacity, or 75 percent in the event that more than 75 percent of the risk was placed in foreign markets.
( c ) Failure to comply with (a) or (b), above, may result in MARAD requiring that the risk be reoffered and that the existing placement be modified, as deemed appropriate.
#### § 32.70-15 Pumprooms—TB/ALL.

Tank vessels handling Grade A, B, C or D liquid cargo shall meet the requirements for tank vessels in § 32.65-20 except that the electrical installation shall comply with the requirements of § 32.45-10(c).