alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, Racial Difference in Stroke.
    Date: May 1, 2007.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Katherine Woodbury, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 
Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-5980, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81eaf6b5b6eec1efe8e9afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87ecf0b3b0e8c7e9eeefa9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 23, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2129 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Demetrius Gilliam, on behalf )

of himself and others similarly ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-14685

situated, )

Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

) 

vs. )

)

Turning Point Solutions LLC, ) 

)

Defendant. )

_____________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notice is 

hereby given that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court of 

the Eastern District of Michigan Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal of Case Without

Prejudice, a copy of which is herewith served upon Defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 11, 2015 /s/ Ronald S. Weiss

Ronald S. Weiss

7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600

West Bloomfield, MI 48322

Phone 248-737-8000

RWeiss@MichiganLemonLaw.com

MICHAEL L. GREENWALD

GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC

5550 Glades Road, Suite 500

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Phone: 561-826-5477

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 5, PageID.18 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 2
Fax: 561.961.5684

mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on May 11, 2015 the above document(s) was electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. 

I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENT IS TRUE AND ACCURATE 

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

/s/ Ronald S. Weiss

Ronald S. Weiss (P48762)

Local Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 5, PageID.19 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 2
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00095-CV

IN RE LAURA DOBBINS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a jury verdict, which did not terminate the parent-child relationship 

between Laura Dobbins and her child, Dobbins brought a petition for writ of 

mandamus to compel the trial court to enter a final order returning her child into her 

care, control, and possession. Since the date of the filing of the petition for writ of 

mandamus, the child has been returned to Dobbins by the trial court. We requested a 

response from the parties regarding the effect of the trial court’s ruling on this 

proceeding. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a motion 

to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus asserting that it is now moot since the trial 

court has granted all of the relief requested by the Relator. The Relator has filed no 

response. When this Court cannot take any action that can effect the requested relief, 

and thus the order will have no practical result, we must dismiss the petition for writ of 

mandamus as moot. Dow Chemical Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995); In re 

Union Pac. R.R., 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 940 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, orig. proceeding).
In re Dobbins Page 2

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, and therefore the petition for writ 

of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed on July 22, 2009

CV06
#### TOLEDO SCALE COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. PETER MUCHA, APPELLEE.

Submitted May 17, 1929

Decided June 21, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodlne.

For the appellant, *Samuel G. Meislerman.*

Eor the appellee, *George I). Mulligan.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is a vendor by contract of conditional sale which was not recorded, in which contract one Grentius was the conditional vendee. Grentius was also a tenant of the defendant, Mucha, and was indebted to him for rent. Mucha started distress proceedings to recover his rent, and while these were pending Grentius and Mucha made a settlement whereby Grentius sold and delivered to Mucha the property covered by the conditional sale contract, and other property in satisfaction either wholly or partially of the claim for rent. It does not specifically appear in the state of the case that Mucha had no knowledge of the contract of conditional sale, but as nothing is said about this point we assume that the parties so understood at the trial. The appellant vendor seeks to hold Mucha for a conversion of the property covered by the conditional sale.

The case of *Commercial Credit v.*Vincis, 98 *N. J. L.*376, *570is authority for the proposition that the lien of the landlord by distress is not such a lien as will take precedence of an unrecorded contract of conditional sale; but that is not this case. In the case at bar there was an existing debt and a transfer or an attempted transfer of title by the debtor of his property in satisfaction of that debt. It is argued that such transfer lacks the necessary consideration as against the claim of the holder of an unrecorded contract of conditional sale; but we hold to the contrary, on the authority of *Knowles Loom Works*v. Vacher, *57 N. J. L.*490; and as we deem there was lawful consideration for the transfer and on the assumption that the defendant landlord had no actual knowledge of the contract of conditional sale, the transfer was good and the judgment which was for the defendant will be affirmed.
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending May 27, 2006

|Filer                   | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------
|Coastal Affiliates, MHC | * 3A1         | Coastal Affiliates, MHC, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts to become a bank holding company pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act in connection with the reorganization of Cape Cod Cooperative Bank, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, into the mutual bank holding company structure.                                                                    | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:06/05/2006
|Newspaper:              | Not available
|Federal Register:       | 06/05/2006   
|Gorham Bancorp, MHC     | * 3A1         | Application by Gorham Bancorp, MHC and Gorham Bancorp Inc., both of Gorham, Maine, to become a mutual bank holding company and a stock bank holding company, respectively (collectively, the Applicants), by acquiring Gorham Savings Bank, Gorham, Maine, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1)and 3(a)(3)of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:06/15/2006
|Newspaper:              | Not available
|Federal Register:       | 06/15/2006   

## 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
Case 2:02-cv-73140-PJD ECF No. 4 filed 11/13/02 PageID.15 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-73140-PJD ECF No. 4 filed 11/13/02 PageID.16 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-73140-PJD ECF No. 4 filed 11/13/02 PageID.17 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-73140-PJD ECF No. 4 filed 11/13/02 PageID.18 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-73140-PJD ECF No. 4 filed 11/13/02 PageID.19 Page 5 of 5
# C_2013225EN.01004803.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/48

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav Holding Srl v H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-379/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark H.EICH - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH - Refusal of registration)

2013/C 225/85

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Arav Holding Srl (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: H.Eich Srl (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, avvocati), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl (Case R 1411/2009-1) — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect appraisal of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

H.Eich

OHIM — Arav

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Arav Holding Srl shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arav Holding Srl shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012

1

---
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Cimatron Ltd. on Form S-8,
File number 333-12458, and on Form S-8, File number 333-140809, of our report dated June
17, 2006 on the consolidated financial statements of Cimatron Ltd. included in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
June 27, 2007



---

---
Argued and submitted December 21, 1995,

remanded in part with instructions; otherwise affirmed January 17,

petition for review denied March 19, 1996 (323 Or 74)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*SAMUEL KEITH MACON, *Appellant.*

(C940289CR; CA A86567)

909 P2d 901

Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*516PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for robbery in the second degree. ORS 164.405. He was sentenced to a 20-month term of imprisonment under the firearm statute, ORS 161.610, with 36 months of post-prison supervision, OAR 253-05-002, and ordered to pay $1,427.11 in restitution, ORS 137.106(1). We write only to address his argument that the trial court erred by imposing a 36-month term of post-prison supervision. We remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

Defendant argues, and the state concedes, that the trial court should have imposed a 24-month, rather than a 36-month, term of post-prison supervision for robbery II, a category six crime, under OAR 253-05-002(2)(b). Although defendant did not object when the trial court imposed the 36-month term, he requests that we exercise our discretion to review the unpreserved claim of error. *See*ORAP 5.45(2).

The circumstances in this case are identical to those in *State v. Jones,*129 Or App 413, 879 P2d 881 (1994). The error is apparent on the face of the record and, for the reasons discussed in *Jones,*we exercise our discretion to review it.

Remanded for entry of a corrected judgment imposing a 24-month period of post-prison supervision; otherwise affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.018-5 Blow-down adjustment and popping tolerance. ( a ) Safety relief valves shall be so constructed that no shocks detrimental to the valve or pressure vessel are produced when lifting or closing. Safety relief valves shall be designed to open sharply and reach full lift and capacity at the maximum accumulation. Valve closure after popping shall be clean and sharp. Safety relief valves shall operate satisfactorily without wiredrawing and chattering at any stage of operation.
( b ) Safety relief valves having adjustable blow-down construction shall be adjusted to close after blowing down not more than 5 percent of the set pressure. Valves shall be adjusted to pop within a tolerance of plus or minus 3 percent of the set pressure, except that for pressures of 70 p.s.i. and below, the tolerance in popping pressure shall not vary more than plus or minus 2 p.s.i.
[CGFR 52-43, 17 FR 9541, Oct. 18, 1952, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58286, Sept. 29, 2014]
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

Commission Meeting; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Friday, May 11, 2007; 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425; 9:30 a.m. 

## Meeting Agenda 

I. Approval of Agenda. 

II. Approval of Minutes of April 13, Meeting. 

III. Announcements. 

IV. Staff Director's Report. 

V. State Advisory Committee Issues. 
      - Virginia SAC.
      - Michigan SAC.

VI. Future Agenda Items. 

VII. Adjourn. 

## Briefing Agenda 

Title IX Athletics: Accommodating Interest and Abilities. 
      - Introductory Remarks by Chairman.
      - Speakers' Presentation.
      - Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director.

*Contact Person for Further Information:*                     Manuel Alba, Press and Communications, (202) 376-8582.                 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

David Blackwood, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 07-2208 Filed 5-1-07; 2:25 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### § 201.122 Application for subpoena duces tecum.

An application for a subpoena duces tecum for documentary or tangible evidence shall be in duplicate except that for good cause shown it may be made during the course of a hearing on the record to the presiding officer. Such application need not be served upon all parties. All such applications, whether written or oral, shall contain a statement or showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought and shall be accompanied by an original and two copies of the subpoena sought which shall describe the documentary or tangible evidence to be subpoenaed with as much particularity as is feasible.
# C_2013032EN.01002604.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/26

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2012 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission

(Case T-560/11) (1)

1

2013/C 32/44

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 4.21


LONMIN PLC
4 GROSVENOR PLACE, LONDON SW1X 7YL
TEL 020 7201 6000 FAX 020 7201 6100


Ashanti Goldfields Company Limited
Gold House
Patrice Lumumba Road
Roman Ridge
PO Box 2665
Accra
Ghana ("Ashanti")                                                      [LOGO]

28 February 2003

Dear Sirs

Termination of Replacement Technical Services Agreement dated 14 March 1994
between Ashanti and Lonrho Plc (now Lonmin Plc) as amended (the "RTSA")

We hereby agree that the RTSA shall be terminated with effect from the date of
your signing a duplicate copy of this letter and returning it to us (the
"Termination Date"), without prejudice to any of the provisions of the RTSA
which expressly relate to or survive the termination thereof.

We also agree that each party shall cease to have any rights or liabilities
(save for any which have accrued prior to the Termination Date including,
without limitation, payment for all and any Services (as defined in the RTSA) in
respect of any Service provided to the other party up to (but not including) the
Termination Date) under the RTSA with effect from and including the Termination
Date in respect of termination thereof or otherwise. Save as set out in this
paragraph, no payment shall be due from either of us to the other in respect of
termination of the RTSA.

Please would you confirm your agreement to the terms of this letter by signing
and returning to us the attached duplicate of this letter.

The terms of this letter shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with,
English law and each party irrevocably agrees that the Courts of England shall
have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any claim, dispute or difference
concerning this letter or any matter arising therefrom.

Yours faithfully

[ILLEGIBLE]

For and on behalf of
Lonmin Plc

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



We hereby agree to the terms of the above letter.

Yours faithfully

[ILLEGIBLE]

For and on behalf of
Ashanti Goldfields Company Limited

Registered Office as above
Registered in England No 103002
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 January 20, 2007

----

Testimony And StatementsLong-term fiscal challenges  -- statement by Chairman Bernanke before the Senate Committee on the Budget.					-Published, January 18, 2007 					

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: January 25, 2007
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted), H. Ravi Brar,
Chief Financial Officer of Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Company's Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
"Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
the Company.





In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hands
hereto as of the 12th day of May, 2004.







|/s/ H. Ravi Brar
H. Ravi Brar
Chief Financial Officer | 
|----------------------------------------------------- |
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-11, PageID.415 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-11, PageID.416 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-11, PageID.417 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-11, PageID.418 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 4