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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 

SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No: 15-11254 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

LOWERY CORPORATION d/b/a 

APPLIED IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL MIRROR IMAGES OF DEVICES 

 On January 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford issued an Order [Doc. 

217] pertaining to this described motion. Plaintiff timely objected [Doc. 219]; the 

individual Defendants filed a joint response [Doc. 223]. 

 The Magistrate Judge declined to require the Court appointed Special Master to 

provide mirror images of all defendant devices in his possession to allow Plaintiff’s 

forensic expert to conduct a forensic review and analysis. The Magistrate Judge also 

held that after the Special Master examines the devices and reports to the Court, the 

parties would be given an opportunity to revisit whether any devices should be turned 

over to Plaintiff’s expert. 

 When a magistrate judge hears and determines a nondispositive issue such as 

this one, the district judge can modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order only if it 

is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law. “Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the court is “left with the definite and firm 
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 

N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). 

 Nothing in Magistrate Judge Stafford’s Order is clearly erroneous such that it 

should be modified or set aside. 

 Plaintiff’s Objections are OVERRULED. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

 s/ VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: 4/3/18
Wood Coating Rule 74.30

Stan Cowen to: Stanley Tong 10/31/2011 09:29 AM

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Hi Stanley,

This email is in response to your call on Oct 28, 2011, regarding our wood coating 

rule VOC limit of 240 g/l per wood sealers. When this limit was adopted in the 

mid-90s, it was based on SCAQMD Rule 1136. If you review their April 8, 1994, 

SCAQMD staff report, they have proposed a 240 g/l limit for this category. 

However, at the time, they indicated that this was a challenging limit, and 

deferred the compliance date from April 1, 1995 to July 1, 1996. I am unsure 

when SCAQMD decided to abandon the 240 g/l limit in favor of the 275 g/l, which 

is their current limit.

The main point to remember when referring to VCAPCD Rule 74.30 is that this 

limit only applies to new wood coatings, not wood refinishing (South Coast AQMD 

has not made this distinction since July 1998). The products are available and 

they work for new wood. There is no need for variances or control equipment. 

The link from Sherwin Williams (the world largest paint company) has many 

products that meet this limit.

http://www.sherwin-williams.com/greensure/product-finishes/

Let me know if you need any other info.

Stan Cowen

VCAPCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELISA RICHMOND,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-14892

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

RUBAB HUQ, M.D., et al.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DENY COSTS

Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to review/deny costs. The court

entered judgment in favor of Defendants on October 5, 2016. Defendants

submitted a bill of costs to the Clerk of the Court, who taxed costs in the amount of

$4,263.91. Plaintiff requests that the court exercise its discretion in favor of

denying the award of costs.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), there is a presumption

that the prevailing party is entitled to costs. See Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534,

539 (6th Cir. 2001). It is within the court’s discretion to deny costs under

appropriate circumstances. Id.; Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp., 611 Fed. Appx.

858, 860 (6th Cir. 2015). The court may consider factors such as “the losing party’s

5:14-cv-14892-JCO-RSW Doc # 94 Filed 03/09/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1849
good faith, the difficulty of the case, the winning party’s behavior, and the

necessity of the costs.” Singleton, 241 F.3d at 539. In addition, a “losing party’s

indigence weighs against taxing her with the winning party’s costs.” Banks, 611

Fed. Appx. at 860 (citing Singleton, 241 F.3d at 539).

Plaintiff argues that the court should not tax costs against her because she is

indigent. In an affidavit, Plaintiff states that she has been unemployed since 2009

and has no income or bank account. She suffers from physical and mental

disabilities, including major manic depressive/bipolar disorder, post-traumatic

stress disorder, and schizophrenia. She currently lives in a transition home for

victims of domestic abuse. She states that due to her disabilities, she has been

unable to find employment.

Based upon Plaintiff’s uncontested affidavit, the court finds that she is

indigent and that it would be inequitable to tax costs against her in this case. See

Crow v. Best Buy Co., 299 F. Supp.2d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (declining to award

costs based upon the plaintiff’s indigence and that the taxation of costs against

“losing civil rights plaintiffs of modest means may chill civil rights litigation”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to

review/deny costs is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Taxed Bill of Cost dated October 7,

-2-

5:14-cv-14892-JCO-RSW Doc # 94 Filed 03/09/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1850
2016, is VACATED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: March 9, 2017

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

counsel of record on this date, March 9, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-3-

5:14-cv-14892-JCO-RSW Doc # 94 Filed 03/09/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1851
Editorial Note on Part 356
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 356 appear at 68 FR 5576, Feb. 4, 2003.

§ 356.51 Exemptions for specific vessels. ( a ) The following Fishing Industry Vessels are exempt from the new ownership and control standards under the AFA and this part 356 for vessel owners and Mortgagees: ( 1 ) Fishing Industry Vessels engaged in fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the authority of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council established under section 302(a)(1)(H) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(H)); and
( 2 ) Purse seine vessels when they are engaged in tuna fishing in the Pacific Ocean outside the exclusive economic zone of the United States or pursuant to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Treaty.
( b ) Fishing Industry Vessels that are claiming the exemption provided for in paragraph (e) of this section must certify to the Citizenship Approval Officer that the vessel is exempt from the ownership and control requirements of this part 356 pursuant to the exemption in paragraph (e) of this section. The vessel owner will be required to follow the U.S. Coast Guard's procedures for documenting a vessel with a fishery endorsement, as in effect prior to the passage of the AFA. The vessel owner must also notify the Coast Guard's National Vessel Documentation Center that it is claiming an exemption from the ownership and control requirements of this part 356 pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
[65 FR 44877, July 19, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 5583, Feb. 4, 2003; 82 FR 56901, Dec. 1, 2017]
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Cimatron Ltd. on Form S-8,
File number 333-12458, and on Form S-8, File number 333-140809, of our report dated June
12, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements of Cimatron Ltd. included in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007.

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

Tel Aviv,
IsraelJune 30, 2008



---

---
# C_2014129EN.01000201.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 — Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S v Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Joined Cases C-337/12 P to C-340/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Registration of signs consisting of a surface with black dots - Declaration of invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Distortion of the evidence))

(2014/C 129/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S (represented by: H. Pernez, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, avvocati), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 in Cases T-331/10 and T-461/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others, by which that court annulled Decisions R 1235/2008-1 and R 1237/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 which annulled the decisions of the Cancellation Division rejecting the applications for declarations of invalidity brought by Pi-Design, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S in respect of figurative marks representing a triangular surface with black dots (T-331/10) and a surface with black dots (T-416/10), for goods in Classes 8 and 21 — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — PiDesign and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots) and Case T-416/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — PiDesign and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots) and Case T-416/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots);

| 2. | Refers the cases back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the cases back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---
§ 28.810 Deck rails, lifelines, storm rails and hand grabs. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d) of this section, deck rails, lifelines, grab rails, or equivalent protection must be installed near the periphery of all weather decks accessible to individuals. Where space limitations make deck rails impractical, hand grabs may be substituted.
( b ) The height of deck rails, lifelines, or bulkwarks must be at least 1 meter (391 ⁄ 2 inches) from the deck, except where this height will interfere with the normal operation of the vessel, a lesser height may be substituted.
( c ) All deck rails or lifelines must be permanently supported by stanchions at intervals of not more than 2.3 meters (7 feet). Stanchions must be through bolted or welded to the deck.
( d ) Portable stanchions and lifelines may be installed in locations where permanently installed deck rails will impede normal cargo operations or emergency recovery operations.
( e ) Deck rails or lifelines must consist of evenly spaced courses. The spacing between courses must not be greater than 0.38 meters (15 inches). The opening below the lowest course must not be more than 0.23 meters (9 inches). Lower courses are not required where all or part of the space below the upper rail is fitted with a bulwark, chain link fencing, wire mesh, or an equivalent.
( f ) A suitable storm rail or hand grab must be installed where necessary in a passageway, at a deckhouse side, at a ladder, and a hatch where an individual might have access.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0388

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

WILLIAM EUGENE JOHNSON,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Amy Eddy, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2020

08/26/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0388
§ 26.03-1 Safety orientation. ( a ) Before getting underway on any uninspected passenger vessel, the operator or master must ensure that suitable public announcements, instructive placards, or both, are provided in a manner that affords all passengers the opportunity to become acquainted with: ( 1 ) Stowage locations of life preservers;
( 2 ) Proper method of donning and adjusting life preservers of the type(s) carried on the vessel;
( 3 ) The type and location of all lifesaving devices carried on the vessel; and
( 4 ) The location and contents of the *Emergency Checkoff List* required by § 26.03-2.
( b ) Vessels subject to this subpart engaged in tender service at yacht clubs and marinas, and vessels being demonstrated for a potential purchaser by a yacht broker, are excluded from the requirements of § 26.03-1 and § 26.03-2.
[CGD 78-009, 45 FR 11109, Feb. 19, 1980, as amended by USCG-1999-5040, 67 FR 34776, May 15, 2002]
#### § 176.302 Certificates and permits.

The Certificate of Inspection and any SOLAS Certificates must be posted under glass or other suitable transparent material, such that all pages are visible, in a conspicuous place on the vessel where observation by passengers is likely. If posting is impracticable, such as in an open boat, the certificates must be kept on board in a weathertight container readily available for use by the crew and display to passengers and others on request.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51049, Sept. 30, 1997]
(EDMI 10/10) Consent Order of Detention Pending Trial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Eastern District of Michigan

United States of America ) 

v. ) Case No.

 ) 

 )

 )

CONSENT ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL/HEARING

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3142 et. seq., the United States has moved for detention of

the defendant and defendant is entitled to a timely hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142(f). However, Defendant,

in open court and with the advice of counsel, agrees to remain in custody and consents to detention, reserving his

right to a full detention hearing before the magistrate judge. Therefore, no hearing will be held, no adverse findings

are made against defendant, and detention is ordered based upon the defendant’s consent. Upon request of defense

counsel, a detention hearing will be set before the duty magistrate judge.

Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for

confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences

or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

Date:

Judicial Officer’s Signature

Printed name and title

Bijuan Woodley

15-cr-20007

January 14, 2015

Elizabeth A. Stafford, United States Magistrate Judge

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Case 2:15-cr-20007-LJM-DRG ECF No. 55, PageID.215 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.207-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. ( a ) Fire-resisting divisions for high-speed craft that are submitted for type approval must be tested in accordance with Annex 1, Part 11 of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.207-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx*.
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as a fire resisting division for high speed craft.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire-testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
###### Editorial Note on Part 199

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 199.211 Lifebuoys.

(a) Each passenger vessel must carry the number of lifebuoys prescribed in table 199.211 of this section.

| Length of vessel in meters (feet) | Minimum number of lifebuoys |
| --- | --- |
| Under 60 (196) | 8 |
| 60(196) and under 120(393) | 12 |
| 120(393) and under 180 (590) | 18 |
| 180 (590) and under 240 (787) | 24 |
| 240 (787) and over | 30 |

Table 199.211—Requirements for Lifebuoys for Passenger Vessels

(b) Notwithstanding § 199.70(a)(3)(ii), each passenger vessel under 60 meters (196 feet) in length must carry at least six lifebuoys with self-igniting lights.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25313, May 20, 1996; 61 FR 40281, Aug. 1, 1996]
§ 39.5003 Additional requirements for multi-breasted loading using an inboard barge vapor collection system—B/CLBR. ( a ) Each barge must have at least one liquid overfill protection system that fulfills the requirements of 46 CFR 39.2009.
( b ) The vapor header of an inboard barge that is used during outboard barge loading must— ( 1 ) Be aligned with the vapor header of the outboard barge;
( 2 ) Have a diameter at least as large as the diameter of the largest pipe in the vapor collection system of the outboard barge; and
( 3 ) Be marked in accordance with 46 CFR 39.2001(h).
( c ) A licensed tankerman, trained in and familiar with multi-breasted loading operations, must be onboard each barge during transfer operations. The tankerman serves as the barge person-in-charge (PIC). During transfer operations, the barge PICs must maintain constant communication with each other as well as with the facility PIC.
( d ) If multi-breasted loading will be conducted using more than one liquid transfer hose from the shore facility, the facility must be capable of activating the emergency shutdown system required by 33 CFR 154.550. This will automatically stop the cargo flow to each transfer hose simultaneously, in the event an upset condition occurs that closes the remotely operated cargo vapor shutoff valve in the facility's vapor control system. Multi-breasted loading is prohibited unless the shore facility can comply with this requirement.
§ 34.15-30 Alarms—T/ALL. ( a ) Spaces required to have a delayed discharge by § 34.15-10(f) which are protected by a carbon dioxide extinguishing system and are normally accessible to persons on board while the vessel is being navigated, other than paint and lamp lockers and similar small spaces, shall be fitted with an approved audible alarm in such spaces which will be automatically sounded before the carbon dioxide is admitted to the space. The alarm shall be conspicuously and centrally located and shall be marked as required by § 35.40-7 of this subchapter. Such alarms shall be so arranged as to sound during the 20-second delay period prior to the discharge of carbon dioxide into the space, and the alarm shall depend on no source of power other than the carbon dioxide.
#### Peleg Sweet, *Appellant, v.*Gilbert Steer, *Respondent.*

Judgment of County Court reversed and that of justice affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Boardman, J.
EXHIBIT 99(a)

CHIEF  EXECUTIVE  OFFICER  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection with the Annual Report of Lexington B&L Financial Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with  the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, E. Steva Vialle,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
as  added  by  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     (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  and  for  the  period covered by the Report.


                                                  /s/  E. Steva  Vialle
                                                  ---------------------
Date:  November 27, 2002                          E.  Steva  Vialle
                                                  Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>