alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012039EN.01001503.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/15

---

Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission

(Case T-597/11 P)

(2012/C 39/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michails (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Meidani, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold the appeal to be admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission;

| — | order payment to the applicant of damages for the non-material damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 30 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order payment to the applicant of damages for the non-material damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 30 000;

| — | make an order as to costs as laid down by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its ruling on his application, by which he sought the annulment of the Commission’s refusal of the request made by him for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the Commission’s rejection dated 14.9.2009 of his complaint made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

In particular, the appellant claims an infringement of his procedural rights and an infringement of Community law since, first, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), erring in its assessment of the evidence, erred by entirely failing to examine whether evidence had been unlawfully taken into account when the Commission proceeded to change his employment status without adopting the administrative act necessary for that change. Second, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not observe the principles which govern the taking of evidence and the burden of proof since notwithstanding the fact that the appellant produced the document which proved his unlawful transfer, the Tribunal did not request, as required under Article 55 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, from the Commission at any stage of the proceedings the production of evidence which would refute the above position. Third, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not examine the reality of his employment status as that is revealed in the Sysper and Sysper 2 systems and on what legal basis the representation of him to be found there was supported in order to rule on whether that constitutes psychological harassment of him and falsification of evidence

---
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

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neurotransporters, Receptors, and Calcium Signaling Study Section, June 7, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to June 8, 2007, 5 p.m., Grand Hyatt San Francisco, 345 Stockton Street, San Francisco, CA 94108 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 20, 2007, 72 FR 19941-19942.                

The meeting will be held on June 7, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

      ( print page 26413)    
Dated: May 2, 2007.

Judith Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2299 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 196.40-5 Hull markings.

Vessels shall be marked as required by parts 67 and 69 of this chapter.

[CGD 72-104R, 37 FR 14233, July 18, 1972; 37 FR 18537, Sept. 13, 1972]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 20419-20420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2058]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 24, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 20419]]


                Proclamation 8128 of April 19, 2007

                
Dutch-American Friendship Day, 2007

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                On Dutch-American Friendship Day, we celebrate our 
                longtime friendship with the Kingdom of the Netherlands 
                and honor the many Dutch Americans who have made 
                significant contributions to our country.

                Our close partnership with the Netherlands dates back 
                to the founding of our Nation, and it remains among our 
                oldest continuous relationships. Many of the Pilgrims 
                first sailed for the New World from a Dutch port, and 
                when a small American warship approached the island of 
                St. Eustatius in 1776, the Dutch port there gave the 
                American flag its first friendly gun salute. A few 
                years later, the Netherlands became one of the first 
                nations to recognize the independence of the United 
                States of America. The United States and the 
                Netherlands are continuing that tradition of close 
                cooperation in the 21st century, working together to 
                bring hope and liberty to places where it has long been 
                denied.

                Dutch Americans have enriched the American experience 
                and have helped write our history, strengthen our 
                character, and shape our society. Today, we pay tribute 
                to our allies in the Netherlands and recognize the 
                proud citizens of Dutch ancestry who call America home.

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the 
                United States of America, by virtue of the authority 
                vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United 
                States, do hereby proclaim April 19, 2007, as Dutch-
                American Friendship Day. I encourage all Americans to 
                celebrate our country's Dutch heritage and the many 
                ways Dutch Americans have strengthened our Nation.

[[Page 20420]]

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord two 
                thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United 
                States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 07-2058
Filed 4-23-07; 9:29 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.292 Separation of piping systems.

Cargo piping systems must be arranged so that operations necessary to provide separate systems can be accomplished in a cargo handling space or on the weatherdeck.

[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21208, May 17, 1982]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed
registration statements, Reg. Nos. 333-96341, 333-31342, 333-85791, 333-53667,
333-28147, 333-27009, 333-03703, 333-49180, 333-36478, 333-40038 and 333-43838.
It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the
Company subsequent to December 31, 2000 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the dates of our reports.
                                                       /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


August 6, 2001
Dallas, Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Rashid Mohamed Sadi, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Case No. 15-11314

Barack H. Obama, et al., Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this action against President Barack H. Obama,

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, and United States

Ambassador to Yemen Matthew H. Tueller.

The docket reflects that Plaintiffs have not yet served any of the Defendants named in

this action. 

On April 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an “Ex Parte Emergency Motion For Preliminary

And/Or Permanent Injunction, And Mandamus And Declaratory Relief.” (Docket Entry No. 6). 

This motion, filed ex parte and without Defendants having been served with the complaint in this

action, asks this Court to grant a preliminary injunction in this action.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, a district court “may issue a preliminary injunction only

on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, “Rule 65(a)(1)

requires notice prior to the entry of a preliminary injunction” and this Court is not authorized to

grant an ex parte motion for a preliminary injunction. Reed v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 581 F.2d

1

2:15-cv-11314-SFC-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 04/22/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 116
570, 573 (6th Cir. 1978). Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has explained that “the notice requirement

of Rule 65(a)(1) also ‘implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to

oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition.’” County Sec. Agency v. Ohio Dept. of

Commerce, 296 F.3d 477, 484 (6th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Preliminary

Injunction (Docket Entry No. 6) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: April 22, 2015

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

April 22, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/J. McCoy 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-11314-SFC-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 04/22/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 117
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.050-4 Construction and workmanship. ( a ) *General.* This specification covers ring life buoys which provide buoyancy to aid in keeping persons afloat in the water. Each buoy consists of a body constructed in the shape of an annular ring, with an approximately elliptical body cross section and which is fitted with a grab line around the outside periphery. The outside and inside diameters of the ring and the length and width of the cross section of the body shall be uniform throughout.
( b ) *Body.* The body shall be made in either one or two pieces. If of two pieces, the pieces shall be equal in size and shall be adhesive bonded along a center line through an axis passing through the flat area dimension of the body. The adhesive shall be a liquid cold setting, polymerizable, nonsolvent, containing material of the phenolepichlorhydrin type or equivalent having good strength retention under outdoor weathering conditions.
( c ) *Grab line.* The finished length of the grab line shall be four times the outside diameter of the buoy. The ends of the grab line shall be securely and neatly spliced together, or shall be hand whipped with a needle and both ends securely and smoothly seized together. The grab line shall encircle the buoy and shall be held in place by the beckets. The spliced or seized ends of the grab line shall be placed in the center of the width of one of the beckets.
( d ) *Beckets.* Each ring buoy shall be fitted with four beckets located at equidistant points about the body of the buoy. The beckets shall be passed around the body of the buoy with the free ends to the outside, and shall be securely cemented to the buoy with a suitable waterproof adhesive which is compatible with the unicellular plastic used in the buoy body. The ends of the beckets shall be turned under at least 1 inch, one end to go around the grab line, and the other to be laid flat against the first end. The beckets shall then be stitched to the grab line with not less than five hand stitches made with two parts of thread or machined stitched with not less than three stitches per inch. Alternate methods for rigging beckets and grab line will be given special consideration.
( e ) *Weight.* The weight of the completely assembled buoy shall be not less than 2.5 pounds and not more than 4.25 pounds for the 20-inch size, not less than 3.0 pounds and not more than 5.5 pounds for the 24-inch size, and not less than 5.0 and not more than 7.5 pounds for the 30-inch size.
( f ) *Workmanship.* Ring life buoys shall be of first class workmanship and free from any defects materially affecting their appearance or serviceability.
[CGFR 54-46, 19 FR 8707, Dec. 18, 1954, as amended by CGFR 62-17, 27 FR 9045, Sept. 11, 1962; CGFR 65-9, 30 FR 11477, Sept. 8, 1965]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRAACTED FROM
PCD INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                          21,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                       234
<INVENTORY>                                      2,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,101
<PP&E>                                          10,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,144
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,973
<SALES>                                         13,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,450
<CGS>                                            6,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,679
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,679
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRADLEY A. ARNDT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-11108 

v. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AN 

INDEPENDENT FORENSIC MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF 

AND EXTENDING THE EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE (DE 22) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s motion to 

compel an independent mental examination (“IME”) of Plaintiff (DE 22), 

Plaintiff’s response (DE 26), and Defendant’s reply (DE 30). Defendant seeks to 

compel Plaintiff to undergo a forensic mental health examination by Drs. Liza H. 

Gold and Daniel Murie, a psychiatrist and psychologist respectively. It asserts that 

such an examination is necessary to allow Defendant to challenge Plaintiff’s proofs 

on the topics of 1) whether Plaintiff has a qualifying disability under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (“ADA”) and 2) if so, what, if 

anything, would be a reasonable accommodation that would enable him to perform 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 35 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 783
2

his job duties. Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that he has not put his mental 

health in controversy. 

 This matter came before me for a hearing on December 22, 2015. For the 

reasons stated on the record, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, with the 

following specifications: 

1. The purpose of the IME is limited to allowing Defendant to challenge 

Plaintiff’s mental health proofs on the topics of 1) whether Plaintiff has a 

qualifying disability under the ADA; 2) if so, what, if anything, would be a 

reasonable accommodation that would enable him to perform his job duties; 

3) the severity of Plaintiff’s PTSD; and 4) the general nature of PTSD. 

2. The IME will be conducted at or near Plaintiff’s home town of Vestabia, 

Alabama or in Detroit, Michigan when Plaintiff is in town for a deposition. 

The choice of location (Alabama or Michigan) will be Plaintiff’s. Defendant 

will reimburse Plaintiff for any reasonable expenses incurred which are 

related to his attendance at the IME, excluding travel to or from Michigan. 

3. The IME will be conducted over one to two days, depending on Plaintiff’s 

preference. 

4. The IME must occur on or before February 7, 2016. 

5. Defendant shall serve the IME reports on Plaintiff on or before February 21, 

2016. 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 35 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 784
3

6. Defendant shall make Drs. Gold and Murie available for deposition by 

Plaintiff on or before March 14, 2016. 

7. The deadline for expert discovery will be extended to March 31, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 23, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

December 23, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 35 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 785
§ 298.19 Financing Eligible Export Vessels. ( a ) *Notification to Secretary of Defense.* ( 1 ) We will provide prompt notice of our receipt of an application for a loan Guarantee for an Eligible Export Vessel to the Secretary of Defense.
( 2 ) During the 30-day period, beginning on the date on which the Secretary of Defense receives such notice, the Secretary of Defense may disapprove the loan guarantee if the Secretary of Defense makes an assessment that the Vessel's potential use may cause harm to United States national security interests.
( 3 ) The Secretary of Defense may not disapprove a loan Guarantee under this section solely on the basis of the type of vessel to be constructed with the loan Guarantee. The authority of the Secretary of Defense to disapprove a loan Guarantee under this section may not be delegated to any official other than a civilian officer of the Department of Defense appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. We will not approve a loan guarantee disapproved by the Secretary of Defense.
( b ) *Vessel eligibility.* We may not approve a Guarantee for an Eligible Export Vessel unless: ( 1 ) We find that the construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning of the Vessel will aid in the transition of United States shipyards to commercial activities or will preserve shipbuilding assets that would be essential in time of war or national emergency;
( 2 ) The owner of the Vessel agrees with us that the Vessel shall not be transferred to any country designated by the Secretary of Defense as a country whose interests are hostile to the interests of the United States; and
( 3 ) We determine that the countries in which the shipowner, its charterers, guarantors, or other financial interests supporting the transaction, if any, have their chief executive offices or have located a substantial portion of their assets, present an acceptable financial or legal risk to our collateral interests. Our determination will be based on confidential risk assessments provided by the Inter-Agency Country Risk Assessment System and will take into account any other factors related to the loan guarantee transaction that we deem pertinent.