alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014184EN.01002102.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/21

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 25 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Comisariatul Judeţean pentru Protecţia Consumatorilor Argeş v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Piteşti, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruţa Florentina Matei

(Case C-236/12) (1)

1

2014/C 184/26

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4. 8. 2012.

1

---
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS126718 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
#### § 272.33 Appeals.

The Operator may appeal final penalty determinations of the Director, Office of Ship Operating Assistance, to the Board, as provided in § 272.43(c) of this part.
1

TROTT LAW, P.C. 31440 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY, SUITE 200

FARMINGTON HILLS, MI

48334

PHONE (248) 642-2515

FACSIMILE (248) 205-4118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ESTATE OF DOUGLAS ANDREW WOLFE, and ANNA KATHERINE PREETZ a/k/a

Anna K. Preetz

Case No. 15-cv-11911

Hon. Bernard A. Friedman

Plaintiffs, Magistrate: Michael J. Hluchaniuk

v

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant. LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTH

CENTRAL MICHIGAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: Sarah E. Bouck (P40216)

3490 Belle Chase Way, Ste. 50

Lansing, MI 48911

(517) 394-2985

TROTT LAW, P.C. By: Robert J. Kinggo III (P68442)

Attorneys for Defendant

31440 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

(248) 593-0496

rkinggo@trottlaw.com

DEFENDANTíS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1

NOW COMES Defendant, CitiMortgage, Inc. (ìCitiMortgageî), by and

through its attorneys, TROTT LAW, P.C., by Robert J. Kinggo III, and for its

Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 7.1 submits:

1. 70% of the shares of CitiMortgage are owned by Citibank, N.A., and the remaining 30% of the shares are owned by Citigroup Retail Services, LLC.

2:15-cv-11911-BAF-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 06/16/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 71
2

TROTT LAW, P.C. 31440 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY, SUITE 200

FARMINGTON HILLS, MI

48334

PHONE (248) 642-2515

FACSIMILE (248) 205-4118

2. a. 80% of the shares of Citigroup Retail Services, LLC are

owned by Citicorp USA;

b. 15% of the shares of Citigroup Retail Services, LLC are

owned by CFNA Receivables (DE), Inc.;

c. 3% of the shares of Citigroup Retail Services, LLC are owned

by CFNA Receivables (MD), Inc.; and

d. 2% of the shares of Citigroup Retail Services, LLC are owned

by CFNA Receivables (NC), Inc. 3. Citicorp USA, CFNA Receivables (DE), Inc., CFNA Receivables

(MD), Inc., and CFNA Receivables (NC), Inc., are each a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Citibank, N.A. 4. Citibank, N.A., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citicorp. 5. Citicorp is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. 6. Citigroup, Inc., is a publicly traded corporation. Dated: June 16, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, TROTT LAW, P.C.

/s/ Robert J. Kinggo III__ Robert J. Kinggo III (P68442)

Attorney for Defendant

31440 Northwestern Hwy., Ste.200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

248.593.0496

2:15-cv-11911-BAF-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 06/16/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 72
3

TROTT LAW, P.C. 31440 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY, SUITE 200

FARMINGTON HILLS, MI

48334

PHONE (248) 642-2515

FACSIMILE (248) 205-4118

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 16, 2015 , I electronically filed the foregoing

paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to the following:

Sarah E. Bouck (P40216)

sbouck@lsscm.org

Dated: June 16, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, TROTT LAW, P.C.

/s/ Robert J. Kinggo III__ Robert J. Kinggo III (P68442)

Attorney for Defendant

31440 Northwestern Hwy., Ste.200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

248.593.0496

2:15-cv-11911-BAF-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 06/16/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 73
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICKEY BILLS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11414 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DANIEL HEYNS et al. 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) TERMINATING APPEARANCE OF PRO BONO COUNSEL 

FOR PLAINTIFF RICKEY BILLS, (2) ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (3) 

TERMINATING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

RESPOND (ECF #57) AS MOOT 

 In this prisoner civil rights action, state prisoner Rickey Bills alleges, among 

other things, that several current and former employees of the Michigan Department 

of Corrections misappropriated or misapplied funds that were deposited into his 

prison bank account. (See Amended Complaint, ECF #18.) 

 On May 4, 2017, the Court appointed attorneys Scott Knapp, Nolan Moody, 

and Samantha Pattwell of the Dickinson Wright law firm as pro bono counsel for 

Bills. The Court’s intention was that its appointment of Knapp, Moody, and Pattwell 

would be for the limited purpose of (1) investigating Bills’ claim that an underlying 

state-court order was denying him access to the courts and (2) exploring whether 

Bills and the Defendants could reach a sensible resolution to all of Bills’ claims. 
2

 The Court understands that attorneys Knapp, Moody, and Pattwell have 

concluded their work, spoken with Bills, and determined that a global resolution of 

Bills’ claims against Defendants is not possible at this time. The Court therefore 

TERMINATES the appearances of Knapp, Moody, and Pattwell as Bills’ pro bono 

counsel in this action because the limited nature of their appointment is now 

completed. 

 The Court further understands that Bills would like to amend the Amended 

Complaint to add additional claims against the Defendants. Bills no longer has the 

right to amend as a matter of course. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). 

However, the Court will allow Bills to file a motion for leave to amend within 45 

days of the date of this Order. Such a motion shall comply with all applicable rules 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, including 

Local Rule 15.1, which requires Bills to attach a copy of his proposed Amended 

Complaint to that motion: 

A party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the 

proposed amended pleading to the motion. Any 

amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of 

course or upon a motion to amend, must, except by leave 

of court, reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and 

may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference. 
3 

 Finally, the Court TERMINATES Bills’ motion to respond to Defendants’ 

now-terminated motions to dismiss (ECF #57) as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 12, 2018 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on February 12, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
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 21, 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”), Global Climate and Energy Project (“GCEP”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its activities. 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, the members of GCEP have, as of September 1, 2006, amended the agreement between them to extend the termination of the Project, which currently will terminate August 31, 2009.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project, and GCEP intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 12, 2003, GCEP filed the 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 April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16552).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 24, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29353).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-2229 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,132
<INVENTORY>                                     69,162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,473
<PP&E>                                         127,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,557
<BONDS>                                        133,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   292,047
<SALES>                                         94,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,324
<CGS>                                           72,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (537)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 190.07-5 Definitions.

(a) *Standard fire tests.* A *standard fire test* is one which develops in the test furnace a series of time temperature relationships as follows:

5 minutes—1,000 °F.

10 minutes—1,300 °F.

30 minutes—1,550 °F.

60 minutes—1,700 °F.

(b) *A* Class divisions. Bulkheads or decks of the *A* Class shall be composed of steel or equivalent metal construction, suitably stiffened and made intact with the main structure of the vessel; such as shell, structural bulkheads, and decks. They shall be so constructed, that if subjected to the standard fire test, they would be capable of preventing the passage of flame and smoke for 1 hour.

(c) *B* Class bulkheads. Bulkheads of the *B* Class shall be constructed with approved incombustible materials and made intact from deck to deck and to shell or other boundaries. They shall be so constructed that, if subjected to the standard fire test, they would be capable of preventing the passage of flame for one-half hour.

(d) *C* Class divisions. Bulkheads or decks of the *C* Class shall be constructed of approved incombustible materials, but need meet no requirements relative to the passage of flame.

(e) *Steel or other equivalent metal.* Where the term *steel or other equivalent metal* is used in this subpart, it is intended to require a material which, by itself or due to insulation provided, has structural and integrity qualities equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable fire exposure.

(f) *Approved material.* Where in this subpart approved materials are required, they refer to materials approved under the applicable subparts of part 164 of Subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter, as follows:

| Deck coverings | 164.006 |
| --- | --- |
| Structural insulation | 164.007 |
| Bulkhead panels | 164.008 |
| Incombustible materials | 164.009 |
| Interior finish | 164.012 |

[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1125, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 74-155, 41 FR 17910, Apr. 29, 1976]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLORIA LYNN COLUMBERT,

Petitioner,

v.

A. STEWART,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-11903

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,

AND DENYING RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Gloria Lynn Columbert’s Motion for

Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus relief

challenging her conviction for second-degree murder. (ECF No. 1). The petition was not

timely filed and the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss on that basis. (ECF

No. 20). Because the Court has already issued a ruling on the certificate of appealability,

the Court construes the Motion for Certificate of Appealability as a motion for

reconsideration. 

Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a

“palpable defect,” (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the

correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R.

7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.

2004). 

The Court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) because reasonable jurists

could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)” the petition “should have been

resolved in a different manner.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation

omitted). Petitioner’s motion simply reasserts arguments already advanced and,

therefore, fails to allege sufficient grounds upon which to grant reconsideration. See L.R.

7.1(h)(3) (“[T]he Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that

merely present the same issues relied upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable

implication.”). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of

Appealability” (ECF No. 22), which the Court has construed as a “Motion for

Reconsideration.” 

SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: May 22, 2018

2
#### § 30.01-10 Application of regulations governing alterations or repairs—TB/ALL.

When major alterations or major repairs of tank vessels become necessary the work shall be done under the direction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and shall be in accordance with the regulations in effect for new construction insofar as possible. When minor alterations or minor repairs of tank vessels become necessary such work shall be under the direction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and shall be in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time the vessel was contracted for or built, or in accordance with the regulations in effect for new construction insofar as possible.
# C_2013225EN.01004702.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/47

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Asa sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-354/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Word mark FEMIFERAL - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier word and figurative mark feminatal)

2013/C 225/82

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Asa sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Chimiak, adwokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2012 in Case T-110/11 Asa v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL), by which the General Court dismissed as unfounded the action brought by Asa sp. z o.o., applicant for the word mark ‘FEMIFERAL’, seeking the annulment of Decision R 0182/2010-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 19 November 2010, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division, which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘Feminatal’ and of the national figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘feminatal’ for goods classified in Class 5 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Asa

OHIM

Merck (FEMIFERAL)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Asa sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Asa sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

1

---
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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending September 30, 2006

|Filer                         | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------------- | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|JACKSON FINANCIAL CORPORATION | CIC         | Notice by Frederick D. Blume, Mayfield, Kentucky, to increase control of Jackson Financial Corporation, Mayfield, Kentucky. | Newspaper:10/10/2006Federal Register:10/12/2006
|Newspaper:                    | 10/10/2006 
|Federal Register:             | 10/12/2006 

## 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES KLAVER,

 Plaintiff,

 

v. Case No. 2:15-cv-11680

 Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

COUNTY OF WAYNE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL OR FIND

DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT” [Dkt. 10]

This is a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Charles Klaver, who

is incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail, asserts in his pro se complaint that he was subjected to

abuse and mistreatment by twenty-one named Defendants. 

As explained in this Court’s previous order, Plaintiff did not file enough copies of his

complaint for service, and he failed to correct the filing deficiency in the time provided by the Court.

This resulted in the dismissal of the case without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing in accordance with

the rules. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for leave to appeal or find defendant in contempt of

court.” [Dkt. 10]. The motion alleges that on June 18, 2015, Plaintiff had a deputy at the jail make

twenty-one copies of his complaint and that the housing officer placed the copies in the U.S. mail

bag to be sent to the Court. Id., p. 1. 

In fact, since the Court issued its May 14, 2015 deficiency order, it has received only nine

additional copies of the complaint. These copies were mailed and received individually, belying

Plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s allegation that all twenty-one copies

were made and mailed at the same time as untrue. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s “Motion for leave to appeal or find defendant in contempt of court” is

2:15-cv-11680-VAR-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 37
DENIED and this case will remain closed.

S/Victoria A. Roberts

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: July 27, 2015

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Charles Klaver by electronic means or U.S.

Mail on July 27, 2015.

S/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2

2:15-cv-11680-VAR-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 38
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (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.
 /s/  Stephen L. Day
    
    /s/ David R. PearceStephen L. Day
    
    David R. PearcePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date:  November 12, 2010
    
    Date: November 12, 2010
2:15-cv-10324-AC-DRG Doc # 23 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 83
2:15-cv-10324-AC-DRG Doc # 23 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 84
2:15-cv-10324-AC-DRG Doc # 23 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 85
2:15-cv-10324-AC-DRG Doc # 23 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 86