alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[111th Congress Public Law 210]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 2256]]

Public Law 111-210
111th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: July 
                      27, 2010 -  [H.J. Res. 83]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 50 USC 1701 note.>> RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS 
            UNDER BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003.

    (a) In General.--Congress approves the renewal of the import 
restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section 3A (b)(1) and 
(c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--This joint resolution shall be deemed to 
be a ``renewal resolution'' for purposes of section 9 of the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

SEC. 2. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

    Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by 
striking ``August 17, 2018'' and inserting ``August 24, 2018''.

SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 26 USC 6655 note.>> TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE 
            ESTIMATED TAXES.

    The percentage under paragraph (2) of section 561 of the Hiring 
Incentives to Restore Employment Act in effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act is increased by 0.25 percentage points.

SEC. 4. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with 
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

[[Page 124 STAT. 2257]]

SEC. 5. <<NOTE: 19 USC 58c note.>> EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This joint resolution and the amendments made by this joint 
resolution shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this joint 
resolution or July 26, 2010, whichever occurs earlier.

    Approved July 27, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 83:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            July 14, considered and passed House.
            July 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DOROTHY MAE ROSS

 Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION 

SERVICES LLC, et al.

 Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-11674-MOB-MJH

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff Dorothy Mae 

Ross and the Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) that pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this action as to the Defendant be dismissed with prejudice by its 

undersigned counsel, that Plaintiff dismisses her claims against Defendant Equifax, as settled, 

with each party to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs incurred within. The Court shall 

retain jurisdiction for sixty (60) days for all matters related to the completion of settlement.

/s/ Gregory Gorski

GREGORY GORSKI

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

215-735-8600

215-940-8000 (fax)

ggorski@consumerlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Jordan S. Bolton

JORDAN S. BOLTON 

CLARK HILL

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500

Detroit, MI 48226-3435

313-965-8300

313-965-8252 (Fax)

jbolton@clarkhill.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Equifax Information Services LLC

2:15-cv-11674-MOB-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 35
SO ORDERED:

________________________________

MARIANNE O. BATTANI, U.S.D.J.

Dated: ____________ 

2

2:15-cv-11674-MOB-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 36
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE DATE TO FILE 

REPLY BRIEF AND FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (ECF #38) 

 On June 29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action, or, in the 

alternative, to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Texas (the “Motion to 

Dismiss”). (See ECF #18.) Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) filed a 

response to the Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2015. (See ECF #31.) Defendants’ 

reply brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss is currently due on August 10, 

2015. 

 On August 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to extend the time to file their 

reply brief (the “Motion to Extend”). (See ECF #38.) In the Motion to Extend, 

Defendants also request that the Court allow them to conduct discovery on 

jurisdictional issues before filing their reply brief. (See id.) 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 39 Filed 08/07/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 976
2 

 Having conducted a preliminary review of the Motion to Extend, the Court 

orders as follows: 

 Defendants are not required to file a reply brief in further support of the 

Motion to Dismiss by the previously-scheduled August 10 deadline; 

 Ford shall file a response brief to Defendants’ Motion to Extend by not later 

than 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Thursday, August 13, 2015; and 

 Defendants shall not file any reply brief in further support of the Motion to 

Extend. 

The Court advises the parties that if it refuses to allow Defendants to conduct 

jurisdictional discovery (and the Court does not mean to imply that it yet has any 

inclination as to how it will rule), it will require Defendants to file their reply brief 

in support of the Motion to Dismiss within 48 hours of the Court’s decision. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: August 7, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on August 7, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/A. Chubb for H. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 39 Filed 08/07/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 977
§ 380.24 Schedule of retention periods and description of records. ( a ) The following records shall be retained for not less than two (2) years after final release agreement or settlement agreement is completed between the Administration and contractors under operating-differential subsidy contracts: ( 1 ) Official company or corporate records such as certificates or articles of incorporation, minute books, stock ledgers, bond registers, merger or acquisition records, patents and copyrights;
( 2 ) Financial statements and reports such as annual reports to stockholders and audit reports by independent public accountants;
( 3 ) Insurance records such as policies, underwriters' audit reports, indemnity bonds, salvage data, and claim files;
( 4 ) Contracts, agreements, franchises, licenses, etc., such as subsidy, charter, ship construction, and pooling agreements;
( 5 ) Vessel operating records such as log books, surveys, position reports, and vessel itineraries;
( 6 ) Voyage account items such as manifests, bills of lading, master's accounts, ship's payrolls;
( 7 ) Underlying traffic records pertaining to tariffs, dray tickets, pooling agreements, passenger reports, freight and passenger conference records.
( b ) The following records shall be retained for three (3) years after final audit and/or approval by the Administration: ( 1 ) Ship construction or reconversion records such as bids, plans, progress payments, and construction-differential subsidy data;
( 2 ) Canceled checks;
( 3 ) Miscellaneous documents and work papers such as correspondence, operating and construction-differential subsidy rate data, subsidy adjustments pursuant to 46 CFR part 276 and approvals pursuant to Article II-10(c) of operating-differential subsidy contracts;
( 4 ) Any document generated under the provisions of the Shipping Act, 1916;
( 5 ) Books of account such as general and subsidiary ledgers, journals, cash books, and check registers;
( 6 ) Personnel records and supplementary records such as union agreements.
( c ) Reports prepared by Federal, State, Local, or foreign governments pertaining to any documents referred to in this § 380.24, shall be retained for the same period as prescribed herein for the retention of the documents to which they apply.
( d ) If identical copies of the same document serve more than one purpose, only the original copy is required to be retained.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2133-0501) (Sec. 204(b), Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1114(b)); Pub. L. 97-31 (August 6, 1981); 49 CFR 1.66 (46 FR 47458, Sept. 28, 1981))
[48 FR 45560, Oct. 6, 1983]
# C_2011362EN.01001901.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/19

---

Action brought on 29 September 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)

(Case T-529/11)

2011/C 362/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2011 in case R 1101/2010-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2011 in case R 1101/2010-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Impulso creador’, for various goods and services among which services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6146187

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2633891 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 4438206 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not correctly consider the different overall impression of the conflicting trademarks.

Pleas in law:

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM E. POWELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-11616 

District Judge Paul D. Borman 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VAUGHN INDEX (DE 

25). 

In the instant action, this is Plaintiff’s first official motion for a Vaughn 

index, although he indirectly requested a Vaughn index in an unrelated motion. 

(DE 22.) In response, the Court directed Plaintiff to its previous denials in related 

case Powell v. IRS, No. 2:15-cv-11033. 

This is Plaintiff’s third motion for a Vaughn index in the related cases. The 

last two were each denied without prejudice within the last two months, the Court 

having explained from the bench and by written order that, “Procedurally, district 

courts typically dispose of FOIA cases on summary judgment before plaintiff can 

conduct discovery.” Rugiero v. United States, 257 F.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir. 2001). 

(See related case Powell v. IRS, 2:15-cv-11033, DE 30 and 40.) The Court has also 

2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP Doc # 26 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 166
repeatedly explained to Plaintiff in related case 2:15-cv-11033 that, “Plaintiff may 

renew his motion for a Vaughn index during dispositive motion practice . . . .” In 

line with its scheduling order, we are not yet in a period that can be described as 

being “during dispositive motion practice.” Undaunted by the Court’s repeated 

and consistent answer to this request, Plaintiff somehow still believes that by 

repeating the request on a nearly monthly basis, he will get a different result. He 

seems unable to take “No” for an answer, thus wasting the valuable time of both 

the Court and the attorney for the Government. For the reasons previously stated 

here, from the bench, in the Court’s previous orders (including but not limited to 

its scheduling order), and in the above-cited case law, the motion is yet again 

denied. To be clear, Plaintiff may not refile this motion or another motion 

requesting similar relief unless and until dispositive motions are pending before the 

Court. If he fails to heed this directive for the fourth time, he risks sanctions. He is 

reminded that patience is a virtue, which needs to be exercised here. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the motion for a Vaughn index is 

again DENIED. (DE 25.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP Doc # 26 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 167
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on December 

8, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/ Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP Doc # 26 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 168
# C_2012032EN.01003102.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/31

---

Action brought on 29 November 2011 — Novartis v OHIM — Organic (BIOCERT)

(Case T-605/11)

2012/C 32/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dr. Organic Ltd (Swansea, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 September 2011 in case R 1030/2010-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 September 2011 in case R 1030/2010-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BIOCERT’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 7134984

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: Austrian trade mark registration No 136273 of the word mark ‘BIOCEF’, for goods in class 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) misinterpreted general principles laid down by the European courts and wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion between ‘BIOCEF’ and ‘BIOCERT’; and (ii) wrongly based its decision on facts which have not been forwarded by the parties of the proceedings.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 298.39 Exemptions. We may exempt an applicant from any requirement of this part, unless required by statute or other regulations, in exceptional cases, on written findings that: ( a ) The case materially involves factors not considered in the promulgation of this part;
( b ) ( 1 ) A national emergency makes it necessary to approve the exemption, or
( 2 ) The exemption will substantially relieve the financial liability of the United States;
( c ) The exemption will not substantially impact effective regulation of the Title XI program, consistent with the objectives of this part;
( d ) The exemption will not be unjustly discriminatory; and
( e ) For Eligible Export Vessels, such exemption would assist in creating financing terms that would be compatible with export credit terms for the sale of vessels built in shipyards other than those in the United States.
§ 176.110 Routes permitted. ( a ) The area of operation for each vessel and any necessary operational limits are determined by the cognizant OCMI, and recorded on the vessel's Certificate of Inspection. Each area of operation, referred to as a route, is described on the Certificate of Inspection under the major headings “Oceans,” “Coastwise,” “Limited Coastwise,” “Great Lakes,” “Lakes, Bays, and Sounds,” or “Rivers,” as applicable. Further limitations imposed or extensions granted are described by reference to bodies of waters, geographical points, distance from geographical points, distances from land, depths of channel, seasonal limitations, and similar factors.
( b ) Operation of a vessel on a route of lesser severity than those specifically described or designated on the Certificate of Inspection is permitted unless expressly prohibited on the Certificate of Inspection. The general order of severity of routes is: oceans, coastwise, limited coastwise, Great Lakes, lakes, bays, and sounds, and rivers. The cognizant OCMI may prohibit a vessel from operating on a route of lesser severity than the primary route a vessel is authorized to operate on if local conditions necessitate such a restriction.
( c ) Non-self-propelled vessels are prohibited from operating on an oceans, coastwise, limited coastwise, or Great Lakes route unless the Commandant approves such a route.
( d ) When designating a permitted route or imposing any operational limits on a vessel, the OCMI may consider: ( 1 ) Requirements of this subchapter for which compliance is based on the route of the vessel;
( 2 ) The performance capabilities of the vessel based on design, scantlings, stability, subdivision, propulsion, speed, operating modes, maneuverability, and other characteristics;
( 3 ) The suitability of the vessel for nighttime operations; and
( 4 ) The suitability of the vessel for all environmental conditions.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
§ 380.2 Filing applications. ( a ) An applicant under section 805(a) shall file his application (16 copies, including three originals) with the Secretary, Maritime Subsidy Board/Maritime Administration at least 15 days in advance of the effective date of the action proposed in the application.
( b ) The application shall concisely and clearly reflect: ( 1 ) Whether the applicant holds an operating-differential subsidy contract under title VI of the Act, or has applied for such type contract, or
( 2 ) Whether the applicant has a Government-owned vessel on charter under title VII of the Act or has applied for the charter of a Government-owned vessel thereunder;
( 3 ) The action for which approval of the Maritime Subsidy Board/Maritime Administration is sought, stated in terms of a request for permission to, directly or indirectly, own, operate, or charter a vessel(s) in the domestic intercoastal or coastwise service, or to own a pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in any person or concern that owns, charters, or operates any vessel(s) in the domestic intercoastal or coastwise service; and
( 4 ) Whether the operator of the vessel to be engaged in the domestic trade is a citizen of the United States as required by and within the meaning of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916.
#### § 31.36-1 Lifesaving appliances and arrangements—TB/ALL.

All lifesaving appliances and arrangements on tank vessels must be in accordance with subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements) of this chapter.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25286, May 20, 1996]