alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014009EN.01001302.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

(Case C-473/12) (1)

1

(Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 10 and 11 - Obligation to inform - Article 13(1)(d) and (g) - Exceptions - Scope of exceptions - Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1))

2014/C 9/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI)

Applicant:

Defendants: Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

Defendants:

Intervening parties: Union professionnelle nationale des détectives privés de Belgique (UPNDP), Association professionnelle des inspecteurs et experts d’assurances ASBL (APIEA), Conseil des ministres

Intervening parties:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 11(1) and 13(1)(d) and (g) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) and of Article 6(3) TEU — Whether there is full harmonisation — Option for a Member State to provide for a restriction of, or an exception to, the obligation to inform the person concerned immediately — Scope of the exception to that obligation — Whether the professional activities of private detectives are included — If not, whether Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC is compatible with Article 6(3) TEU, more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that Member States have no obligation, but have the option, to transpose into their national law one or more of the exceptions which it lays down to the obligation to inform data subjects of the processing of their personal data.

The activity of a private detective acting for a professional body in order to investigate breaches of ethics of a regulated profession, in this case that of estate agent, is covered by the exception in Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 95/46.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of i2 Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael E. McGrath, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1. The
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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|    |  |                                                                        
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL E. MCGRATH                                              
|    |  | Michael E. McGrath Chief Executive Officer and
President March 14, 2006



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                          Independent Auditor's Consent


     We  consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  previously  filed
Registration  Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-1315,  33-75160,  333-41509,
333-46773 and 333-57824) and Form S-8 (File No. 33-66982) of Aura Systems,  Inc.
of our report, dated April 30, 2002, except for Note 22, as to which the date is
May 24, 2002, which contains an emphasis paragraph relating to an uncertainty as
to the  Company's  ability to continue  as a going  concern,  appearing  in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aura System,  Inc. for the year ended February 28,
2002.


/s/  SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN, LLP

Los Angeles, California
May 29, 2002
§ 170.250 Types and classes. ( a ) Watertight doors, except doors between cargo spaces, are classed as follows: ( 1 ) Class 1—Hinged door.
( 2 ) Class 2—Sliding door, operated by hand gear only.
( 3 ) Class 3—Sliding door, operated by power and by hand gear.
( b ) The following types of watertight doors are not permitted: ( 1 ) A plate door secured only by bolts; and
( 2 ) A door required to be closed by dropping or by the action of dropping weights.
( c ) Whenever a door of a particular class is prescribed by these regulations, a door of a class bearing a higher number may be used.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

ROBERT HALL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 15-11428

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment, dated May 25, 2017, 

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

Holdings, Inc., Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Plastipak Technologies, LLC, Plastipak, and

William Young, and against Plaintiffs, Robert Hall, Ebony Martin, Roderick Smartt,

Jason Trent, and Steve Trent. Dated at Port Huron, Michigan, this 25th day of May

2017.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, May 25, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy 

(810) 292-6522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\15-11428.HALL.Judgment.bss.wpd

2
#### IRVIN KNUDSON v. MILTON SCHWARTZ.

Submitted May 17, 1929

Decided July 26, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the plaintiff, *Louis P. Sellyei.*

For the defendant, *Samuel PL. Berlin.*

Pee Curiam.

The case arises out of a collision at one-thirty a. ji. at the crossing of New Brunswick avenue and Convery Place, in Perth Amboy, between a Ford milk truck, operated by plaintiff and proceeding westerly on New Brunswick avenue, and a Durant sedan driven bjr defendant, coming northerly on Convery Place from the Raritan bridge. Plaintiff was on his way to Raritan township with a load of milk in bottles to make his early morning deliveries. Defendant had his wife with him, and the two were on their way from the shore to their home in Union county. Plaintiff brought suit, laying the venue in Middlesex, and defendant did likewise, laying the venue in Union, but the two actions were consolidated for trial. The jury found against defendant on his claim, and in favor of Knudson in the present suit, awarding him a verdict of $3,000, which is attacked as against the weight of evidence, and excessive.

We conclude that it was against the weight of evidence, without giving any special consideration to the amount. It is true that Knudson claimed that he had come within a foot *679of a full stop and that Schwartz caught the front of his truck in passing. But the jury plainly disregarded the convincing evidence of Schwartz’s car, which showed no injury in front or rear, but the plainest possible marks of a heavy blow squarely in the middle of the right side, a smashed runboard and deeply dented right front door. It is quite obvious that the truck was moving, and at considerable speed, and this is confirmed by the fact that it was caught firmly enough in Schwartz’s car to be swung completely around to its right, facing back to Perth Amboy. Whatever be the negligence of Schwartz in crossing New Brunswick avenue at a rate of speed sufficient to move a loaded truck in this manner, Knudson admits that he saw it coming, and coming “so fast that he knew he could not make it across in front of it.” He adds that he put on his brakes and stopped—the mute evidence of Schwartz’s car shows that he did not. The case seems clearly to present a situation in which, admitting that Knudson had the right of waj', which may well be the case, it was obvious to him that Schwartz was not going to respect his rights— and in that situation he was guilty of contributory negligence by going on. *Connolly*v. *Public Service Railway Co.,*94 N. *J. L. 157.*Knudson’s case is not helped by his knowledge that Convery Place was the main road from the Jersey shore and that the crossing of this road with the main road between Perth Amboy and New Brunswick was inherently dangerous.

The rule will be made absolute.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD MIDDLETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-348-A, CA-96-1097-AM) Submitted: June 11, 2002 Decided: July 18, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Middleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Middleton , Nos. CR-92-348-A; CA-96-1097-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 189.27-5 Periodic inspection. ( a ) Your vessel must undergo a periodic inspection within 3 months before or after the second or third anniversary of the date of your vessel's Certificate of Inspection. This periodic inspection will take the place of an annual inspection.
( b ) You must contact the cognizant OCMI to schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No written application is required.
( c ) The scope of the periodic inspection is the same as that for the inspection for certification, as specified in § 189.25-10. The OCMI will insure that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your vessel passes the periodic inspection, the marine inspector will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( d ) If the periodic inspection reveals deficiencies in your vessel's maintenance, you must make any or all repairs or improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6509, Feb. 9, 2000]
#### Cooper, et al. v. Clark, et al.

(Decided March 7, *1919.)*

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Appealable Orders — Order Setting Aside Judgment. — An order setting aside a judgment in term time, and permitting the defendants to answer, is not a final order from which an appeal will lie.

JAMES M. ROBERSON, ROSCOE VANOVER, E. J. PICKLESEIMER and R. H. COOPER for appellants.

CLINE *&*STEELE for appellees.

Opinion op the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Dismissing the appeal.

On July 26, 1917, plaintiffs, R. H. Cooper, and D. H. Hatcher, "brought this suit against the defendants, T. N. Clark and the Omar Oil *&*Gas Company, to recover rentals in the sum of $1,000.00 on leases, which they had assigned to defendants, and damages in the sum of $18,691.00 for a failure to comply with certain terms of the contract, and also the further sum of $30,000.00, the cost of drilling wells according to the contract. On. August 6th following, Messrs. Cline & Steele appeared as attorneys for the defendants and filed a demurrer to the petition. The next regular term of the Pike .circuit court following the filing of the demurrer began on September 10th. .On September 15th, the demurrer was overruled. On the same day, plaintiffs filed an amended petition and defendants insisted on the demurrer to the petition as amended. On September 18th, an order was entered overruling the demurrer to the petition as amended. On September 19th, plaintiffs made a motion to have the allegations of the petition and the amended petition taken as true. The defendants objected and were given until September 24th to file an *493answer. ¡On September 28th, an order was entered, giving the defendants until October 6th to prepare and file their answer, and providing that if the-answer was not filed by that time, the allegations of the petition as amended should be taken as true. No answers were filed on October 6th, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs for the amounts sued for.

On October 10th, and at the same term, defendants appeared by counsel and filed a motion and grounds for setting aside the jitdgment, and filed in support thereof the affidavit of counsel. The court, deeming the grounds sufficient, entered an order setting aside the judgment theretofore entered and permitting the defendants to file their answers. From this order plaintiffs appeal.

It will be observed-that the appeal is prosecuted from an order setting aside a judgment in term time, and permitting the defendants to answer. It is well settled that such an order is not a final order from which an appeal will lie. Darby v. French, 112 S. W. 1132, 3 C. J., sec. 336, 2 R. C. L., sec. 27, p. 44.

Appeal dismissed.
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending May 5, 2007

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 7574 North Western Avenue, Chicago, IL. | Newspaper:05/11/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/11/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 100 South Halsted Street, Chicago, IL.  | Newspaper:05/11/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/11/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 601 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL.    | Newspaper:05/11/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/11/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 2504 West Cermak Road, Chicago, IL.     | Newspaper:05/04/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/04/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 1255 Green Bay Road, Wilmette, IL.      | Newspaper:05/11/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/11/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         116,351
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,526
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                              6,674
<PP&E>                                          14,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 621,594
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     102,139
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               1,085
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           907
<OTHER-SE>                                     486,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   621,594
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                1,725
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             3,143
<COMMISSIONS>                                   37,414
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   33,617
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    4,956
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                  40,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,514)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (6,007)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,007)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,337                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      151                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,388                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,176                       0
<PP&E>                                           9,437                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,919)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,233                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,266                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          2                       0
<COMMON>                                            88                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,039                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,233                       0
<SALES>                                            528                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   528                       0
<CGS>                                              251                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      251                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,792                   4,661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 253                     783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,030)                 (5,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,030)                 (5,373)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,082)                 (5,376)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.97)                  (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)                  (1.02)


</TABLE>
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 May 12, 2007

----

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend without revision the Survey to Obtain Information on the Relevant Market in Individual Merger Cases (FR 2060), Notice of Branch Closure (FR 4031), Survey of Financial Management Behaviors of Military Personnel (FR 1375), Reports Related to Securities of State Member Banks as Required by Regulation H (Reg H-1), and Notification of Nonfinancial Data Processing Activities (FR 4021).					-Approved, May 10, 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: May 17, 2007
#### § 308.523 Application for revision of Open Cargo Policy, Form MA-303.

An application for the revision of an Open Cargo Policy shall be filed in duplicate with the Underwriting Agent on a form which may be obtained from MARAD's underwriting agent or MARAD.