alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 06-1411 (PLF)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On February 21, 2017, the Court reinstated plaintiff Christopher Sanders’s 

procedural due process claim (“Count 2”) in the case, after Sanders exhausted his administrative 

remedies before the Office of Employee Appeals. See Order (Feb. 21, 2017) at 1-2 [Dkt. 141].1

This determination also resurrected a portion of Sanders’s motion for summary judgment, which 

the Court previously had denied as moot for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See

Sanders v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d 523, 539 (D.D.C. 2015); see also Plaintiff’s 

Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of the Complaint at 1 [Dkt. 96]. 

Defendants have asked that their motion for summary judgment on Count 2 also be reinstated. 

See Defendants’ (1) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II and (2) Supplemental

 1 In his complaint, Sanders alleged both a substantive and procedural due process 

claim in Count 2. The Court previously dismissed Sanders’s substantive due process claim 

because Sanders failed to show that he had a clearly established fundamental right in his 

eligibility to be rehired by the DC Metropolitan Police Department. See Sanders v. District of

Columbia, 522 F. Supp. 2d 83, 91-92 (D.D.C. 2007). By opinion and order on April 7, 2015, the 

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to 

the First Amendment Claim in Count 1. See Sanders v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d at 

532-37. 
2

Authority in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 2 [Dkt. 148]. The Court 

will grant their request. 

On July 13, 2017, the Court will hear oral argument regarding plaintiff’s and 

defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the procedural due process claim in Count 

2. In the Court’s view, each party’s original motion for summary judgment has been revived

with regard to the procedural due process claim in Count 2. Because defendants’ original motion 

for summary judgment [Dkt. 96] dealt largely with whether Sanders had failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies with regard to Count 2, the Court will consider defendants’ most recent 

filing [Dkt. 148] as a supplemental memorandum to its motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 95] 

and as supplemental authority in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 95] is reinstated

with respect to Count 2.

SO ORDERED.

____/s/____________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: June 14, 2017
#### LILLIAN CLARKSON AND RUTGERS CLARKSON, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS, v. LOUIS LEY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the plaintiff, *Ward & McGinnis.*

For the defendant, *Collins & Corbin.*

Per Curiam.

This was a suit by husband and wife based on personal injuries to the wife. There was a verdict for the husband of $2,500, to which no objection was made. There was a verdict fn favor of the wife for $12,500 which is attacked as excescessive. The circumstances of the accident were that Mrs. Clarkson, a woman of fifty-eight or sixty years old, was crossing a street and was struck by the defendant’s automobile. She said she was tossed in the air and landed on her back. No limbs were broken but both pelvic bones were fractured and a small process was also broken. Her body was a mass of bruises, her head cut and naturally she sus*333tained very extensive shock. She was in bed fourteen weeks, then on crutches, and at the trial testified that she had never recovered her former ability to do work.

If the testimony in relation to the accident is to be believed, and it is not seriously disputed, it is a marvel that the woman was not killed. The doctors seem to agree that she made what they call a good recovery, but that is not necessarily the same as if she had never been injured. It ■cannot be denied that she was very seriously injured, and in our estimation the verdict, while fairly large, should not be set aside as excessive.

The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 19, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq*. (“the Act”), Open SystemC Initiative (“OSCI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, TAIWAN; Infineon Technologies Austria AG, Villach, AUSTRIA; and Semiconductor Technology Academic Research Center, Yokohama, JAPAN have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OSCI intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 13, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 12, 2006 (71 FR 74559).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-2232 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.157 Free-fall lifeboat launching and recovery arrangements. ( a ) The launching appliance for a free-fall lifeboat must be designed and installed so that the launching appliance and the lifeboat it serves operate as a system to protect the occupants from harmful acceleration forces and to effectively clear the vessel.
( b ) The launching appliance must be designed and arranged so that, in its ready to launch position, the distance from the lowest point on the lifeboat it serves to the water surface with the vessel in its lightest seagoing condition does not exceed the lifeboat's certificated free-fall height.
( c ) The launching appliance must be arranged to preclude accidental release of the lifeboat in its unattended stowed position. If the means provided to secure the lifeboat cannot be released from inside the lifeboat, the means to secure the lifeboat must be arranged to preclude boarding the lifeboat without first releasing it.
( d ) Each free-fall launching arrangement must be provided with a secondary means to launch the lifeboat by falls. Such means must comply with the requirements of §§ 199.150, 199.153, and 199.155. Notwithstanding § 199.150(c), the secondary launching appliance must be capable of launching the lifeboat against unfavorable conditions of trim of 2 degrees either way and of list of 5 degrees either way. The secondary launching appliance need not comply with the speed requirements of § 199.153 (g), (h), and (i). If the secondary launching appliance is not dependent on gravity, stored mechanical power, or other manual means, the launching arrangement must be connected both to the vessel's main and emergency power supplies.
Exhibit 15.1
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-12458 and 333-140809 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-161781 on Form F-3 of our report, dated March 17, 2011, relating to the financial statements of Cimatron Ltd. (the “Company”), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.
  Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.Certified Public AccountantsA member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu


Tel Aviv, Israel





June 30, 2011
----

#### U.S. Geological SurveyData Series 303

#### *Database for Geologic Investigations Series I-2683*

# Database for the Geologic Map of the Bend 30- x 60-Minute Quadrangle,Central Oregon

### *By* Richard D. Koch, David W. Ramsey, David R. Sherrod, Edward M. Taylor, Mark L. Ferns, William E. Scott, Richard M. Conrey, and Gary A. Smith

### 2010

----

----

Suggested citation and version history

U.S. Department of the InteriorKEN SALAZAR, SecretaryU.S. Geological SurveyMarcia K. McNutt, Director

----

**index.html**
# C_2013225EN.01005802.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-406/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/120

Language of the case: Slovene

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

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
#### § 31.35-5 Communications; alarm systems, telephone and voice tube systems, engine telegraph systems, etc.—TB/ALL.

All tank vessels are subject to the regulations contained in subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter except as such regulations are modified by the regulations in this subchapter for tank vessels.
#### § 188.10-53 Oceanographic research vessel.

The term *oceanographic research vessel* means a vessel that the Secretary finds is being employed only in instruction in oceanography or limnology, or both, or only in oceanographic or limnological research, including those studies about the sea such as seismic, gravity meter, and magnetic exploration and other marine geophysical or geological surveys, atmospheric research, and biological research.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25312, May 20, 1996]
**EXHIBIT 99.7**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Cameco Corporation 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of Cameco Corporation as of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of Cameco Corporation’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with thestandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An auditincludes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating theoverall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, the consolidatedfinancial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Cameco Corporation as of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, and its consolidated financial performance and itsconsolidated cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. 

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Cameco Corporation’s internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on the criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO),and our report dated February 5, 2015 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of Cameco Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chartered Accountants 

Saskatoon, Canada 

February 5, 2015
#### § 111.105-1 Applicability.

This subpart applies to installations in hazardous locations as defined in Articles 500 through 505 of NFPA 70, Clause 6 of IEC 60092-502:1999 or Clause 8 of IEC 61892-7:2019 (all incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).

[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16365, Mar. 16, 2023]
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                          AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                        (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE ENTERPRISE)
                  SUBSIDIARIES OF AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                      STATE OF
                                                                                     INCORPORATION
                                                                                         OR
LEGAL NAME                                                                           ORGANIZATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  -----------
<S>                                                                                  <C>
APT Columbus, Inc..................................................................   Delaware
APT Kansas City, Inc...............................................................   Delaware
APT Tampa/Orlando, Inc.............................................................   Delaware
APT Minneapolis, Inc...............................................................   Delaware
APT Houston, Inc...................................................................   Delaware
APT Pittsburgh Limited Partnership.................................................   Delaware
APT Alaska, Inc....................................................................   Delaware
APT Guam, Inc......................................................................   Delaware
APT Operating Company, Inc.........................................................   Delaware
APT Pittsburgh General Partner, Inc................................................   Delaware
</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of M.H. and D.H., Children

No. 06-24-00051-CV

Appeal from the 115th District Court of 

Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1900160). Panel consists of Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

van Cleef. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellants to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellants pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 29, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 25.25-1 Application. This subpart applies to each vessel to which this part applies, except: ( a ) Vessels used for noncommercial use; and
( b ) Vessels leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's noncommercial use.
[CGD 72-172R, 38 FR 8117, Mar. 28, 1973, as amended by USCG-2012-0919, 79 FR 53630, Sept. 10, 2014]
§ 167.43-15 Shipboard stowage. ( a ) The approved buoyant work vests shall be stowed separately from the regular stowage of approved life preservers.
( b ) The locations for the stowage of work vests shall be such as not to be easily confused with that for approved life preservers.
EXHIBIT
32.2








Certification
Pursuant to


Exchange
Act Rule 15d-14(b) and


18
U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Astrata Group Incorporated (the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Wagner, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





i.
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act 1934;
and





ii.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Astrata Group Incorporated and will be retained by Astrata
Group Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.











Dated:  February
      26, 2009
                  /s/ THOMAS A. WAGNERName:
      Thomas A. WagnerTitle:
      Chief Financial
Officer
# C_2011252EN.01003802.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/38

---

Action brought on 24 June 2011 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI)

(Case T-337/11)

2011/C 252/86

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicini SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2011 in Case No R 0918/2010-2 and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 April 2010 relating to Opposition No 992653 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2011 in Case No R 0918/2010-2 and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 April 2010 relating to Opposition No 992653

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: VICINI SpA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI’ (application for registration No 992.653), for goods in Classes 18 and 25

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community word mark ‘ZANOTTI’ (No 244.277), for goods in Class 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition rejected in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
#### DAVID GROSS, APPELLEE, v. IKE JACOBSON, APPELLANT.

Argued October 1, 1929

Decided October 3, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the appellant, *Isador V. Davis.*

Per Curiam.

This is a suit on a bank check made by appellant to the order of cash, delivered to one East, and by him endorsed and delivered to plaintiff-appellee for a valuable consideration and without notice of infirmity in the original consideration for the check. The trial judge awarded judgment for the plaintiff, and if the ordinary rule in such cases had been applicable, this would have been correct; but it appeared on the trial without contradiction that the check had originally been given as the result of a gambling transaction and to settle a gambling debt.

The case of *Fisher*v. *Brehm,*100 *N. J. L.*341, in the Court of Errors and Appeals, lays down the rule, of course,

controlling here, that such an instrument is void and unenforceable when in the hands of a *Iona fide*holder. This rule seems to have been disregarded in the trial court, and the judgment was consequently erroneous, and must be reversed.

Appellee has not appeared by counsel and has submitted no brief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARL D. WILSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 5:14-cv-14525-JCO-DRG 

v 

 Honorable John Corbett O’Meara 

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, 

 Defendant. 

BRIAN P. PARKER (P48617) 

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER, P.C. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 

Southfield, MI 48075 

(248) 642-6268/659-1733 Fax 

brianparker@collectionstopper.com 

KELLIE M. BLAIR (P58642) 

MATTA BLAIR, PLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 593-6100/593-6116 Fax 

kblair@mattablair.com 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 Upon stipulation of the parties; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint and claims against Bayview Loan 

Servicing are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney’s fees to any party. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order resolves the last pending claim and closes 

the case. 

Date: September 30, 2015 s/John Corbett O’Meara 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:14-cv-14525-JCO-DRG ECF No. 30 filed 09/30/15 PageID.623 Page 1 of 1