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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEANNIE WILSON,

individually and as Next Friend Case No. 15-10984

for her minor son, 

M.G., a minor,1

Paul D. Borman

Plaintiffs, United States District Judge

v.

Elizabeth A. Stafford

FOOT LOCKER, INC., United States Magistrate

Judge

et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD’S MAY 5, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 7) AND DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND (ECF NO. 2)

On May 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a Report and

Recommendation to Deny Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 7, Report and

Recommendation; ECF No. 2, Motion to Remand.) Having reviewed the Report and

Recommendation, and there being no timely objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich

L. R. 72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

Paul D. Borman

Dated: June 3, 2015 United States District Judge

1 On March 25, 2015, the Court emailed counsel and instructed that all future filings should bear

only the initials of the minor child. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). The parties are instructed to use

only the initials of the minor in all future filings. Filings failing to comply with this directive will

be stricken.

2:15-cv-10984-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 57
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on June 3, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-10984-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 58
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GREGORY PITTS, 

 Plaintiff, Case Number 15-11354 

 Honorable Terrence G. Berg 

v. 

CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION LP, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 On August 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, requesting 60 days 

for parties to submit final dismissal papers [Dkt. 10]. That time has passed; 

therefore, this case will be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms 

of the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Moore v. United States Postal Serv., 369 Fed. 

App’x 712 (6th Cir. 2010). 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 22, 2015 

 Flint, Michigan 

4:15-cv-11354-TGB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 10/22/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 41
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted onOctober 22, 

2015 October 22, 2015 using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all 

parties. 

s/K. Winslow 

Case Manager Generalist 

4:15-cv-11354-TGB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 10/22/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 42
§ 30.30-11 Determinations. ( a ) After evaluation of materials submitted in accordance with this subpart, a determination will be made as to whether the licensing and certification program described by the materials has standards that are comparable to or more stringent than standards set by the regulations and laws referenced in § 30.30-9.
( b ) Notice of each determination made in accordance with this section and a brief explanation of reasons therefor will be published in the Federal Register. A copy of this notice will also be sent to the person whose name is provided in accordance with § 30.30-5.
( c ) Each determination remains in effect for 5 years unless sooner cancelled.
( d ) Any request to reconsider a determination must be submitted to the address listed in § 30.30-5 and must include a statement of reasons in support. The person submitting the request will be notified in writing of the action taken.
[CGD 79-081a, 45 FR 23427, Apr. 7, 1980, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58345, Sept. 30, 2004; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 68089, Nov. 23, 2004]
§ 173.085 General subdivision requirements. Each oceanographic vessel must comply with the following: ( a ) Section 171.085(c)(1), (d) and (g) of this subchapter.
( b ) Section 171.105 (a) through (g) of this subchapter except that a reduction or elimination of the required inner bottom is allowed if— ( 1 ) The inner bottom would interfere with the mission of the vessel; and
( 2 ) As a result of other design features, the ability of the vessel to withstand side and bottom damage is not reduced.
( c ) Section 171.106 of this subchapter.
( d ) Section 171.108 of this subchapter.
( e ) Section 171.109 of this subchapter.
( f ) Section 171.111 of this subchapter.
( g ) Section 171.113 of this subchapter.
( h ) The collision bulkhead must not be penetrated by more than one pipe that carries liquid to or from the forepeak tank. This pipe must have a screwdown valve that is— ( 1 ) Operative from above the bulkhead deck; and
( 2 ) Attached to the bulkhead inside the forepeak tank.
( i ) Section 171.116 (b), (c), and (e) of this subchapter.
( j ) Section 171.117(c) of this subchapter.
( k ) Each port light in a space located below the freeboard deck, as defined in § 42.13-15(i) of this chapter, or in a space within an enclosed superstructure must be fitted with a hinged inside dead cover.
( l ) Section 171.118 (b) and (c) of this subchapter.
( m ) Section 171.122 (a) through (d) and (f) of this subchapter.
( n ) Section 171.135 of this subchapter.
( o ) A ventilation duct or forced draft duct may not penetrate a main transverse watertight bulkhead unless— ( 1 ) The penetration is watertight;
( 2 ) The penetration is located as near the vessel's centerline as possible; and
( 3 ) The bottom of the duct is not more than— ( i ) 18 inches (45.7 cm) below the bulkhead deck; and
( ii ) 4 feet (121.9 cm) above the final waterline after damage determined in § 173.080.
EXHIBIT 99.13
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
   (a)
    
    under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Operating
Properties  McArthur River/Key Lake, Operations and Development Projects  Uranium
Operating Properties  Inkai, Operations and Development Projects  Uranium
Development Project  Cigar Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources  and Governance -
Interest of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended
December 31, 2010 dated February 16, 2011 for the McArthur River/Key Lake, Inkai and
Cigar Lake properties; and(b)
    
    under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31,
2010 dated February 14, 2011 for the McArthur River/Key Lake, Cigar Lake and Inkai
properties,
    /s/
    
    Alain G. MainvilleName:
    
    Alain G. Mainville, P. Geo.Title:
    
    Director, Mineral Resources Management, Cameco CorporationDate:
    
    February 16, 2011
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01



                         PRISM SOLUTIONS, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
            (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                         ------------------------------------------------
                                             1994              1995               1996
                                         -----------       -----------       ------------


<S>                                        <C>               <C>             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding        2,814,115         3,045,568         10,962,977

Common equivalent shares
   pursuant to SAB No. 83                         --                --            256,179
                                         -----------       -----------       ------------
Average common and common stock
   equivalent shares outstanding           2,814,115         3,045,568         11,219,156
                                         ===========       ===========       ============

Net loss                                 $    (2,538)      $    (2,738)      $     (1,839)
                                         ===========       ===========       ============

Net loss per share                       $     (0.90)      $     (0.90)      $      (0.16)
                                         ===========       ===========       ============
</TABLE>

NOTE:  THERE IS NO  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  PRIMARY  AND FULLY  DILUTED NET
LOSS PER SHARE FOR ALL PERIODS  PRESENTED.  CONVERSION  OF COMMON  STOCK
EQUIVALENTS WAS NOT ASSUMED BECAUSE THE EFFECT IS
ANTI-DILUTIVE.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Henry Livingston.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
§ 204.7 Delegation of authority. ( a ) Subject to written approval of the Attorney General of the United States of any payment in excess of $100,000, the Chief Counsel of the Maritime Administration is authorized to approve the award, compromise, or settlement of any tort claim and to authorize payment of the claim.
( b ) The Chief Counsel is authorized to deny any claim and to settle and authorize payment of any tort claim involving the Maritime Administration in an amount not exceeding $100,000.
[64 FR 54783, Oct. 8, 1999]
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SoundView Technology Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark F. Loehr, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|Dated: November 14, 2003 |  | SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------
|                         |  | By:                             

---

QuickLinks
10Q Q2 2005 EXHIBIT 10.7






Exhibit 10.7





 

 

EXECUTIVE CASH BONUS PLAN SUMMARY


 

Pharmacyclics has established an executive cash bonus program that is
administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  The bonus
program covers the company's fiscal year from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005
and assuming all targets were met, provides for payment of up to a maximum of
30% of the executive officer's base salary.  The purpose of the program is to
reward executive officers of the Company, including the chief executive officer,
for successful achievement of certain corporate and personal goals.  The bonus
targets are divided into the following three categories: 1) clinical
development, 2) research and development related to the company's product
pipeline, and 3) individual goals.


The actual bonuses payable for fiscal year 2005 will vary depending on the
extent to which actual performance meets, exceeds, or falls short of the targets
approved by the Compensation Committee.  In addition, the Compensation Committee
retains the discretion to increase, reduce or eliminate the bonus that might
otherwise be payable to any individual based on actual performance as compared
to pre-established goals.
# C_2008009EN.01000501.xml

| 15.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 17 September 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigas

(2008/C 9/03)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee share the Commission's concerns expressed in the preliminary assessment with regard to Distrigas' long-term gas supply contracts foreclosing other gas suppliers' access to the market. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee share the Commission's concerns expressed in the preliminary assessment with regard to Distrigas' long-term gas supply contracts foreclosing other gas suppliers' access to the market.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the practices in question could have an effect on trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the practices in question could have an effect on trade between Member States.

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the commitments offered by Distrigas are sufficient to meet the concerns identified by the Commission in its preliminary assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the commitments offered by Distrigas are sufficient to meet the concerns identified by the Commission in its preliminary assessment.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the commitments offered by Distrigas do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to ensure that alternative gas suppliers are not faced with barriers to entry due to a foreclosure of the relevant markets. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the commitments offered by Distrigas do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to ensure that alternative gas suppliers are not faced with barriers to entry due to a foreclosure of the relevant markets.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree to render the commitments binding on Distrigas until 31 December 2010. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree to render the commitments binding on Distrigas until 31 December 2010.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee intend to recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee intend to recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                      15,366,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  549,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,335
<INVENTORY>                                  4,553,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,767,131
<PP&E>                                       3,289,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,440,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,002,751
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,860
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,601,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,440,551
<SALES>                                      4,562,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,981,012
<CGS>                                        3,334,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,488,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               759,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (277,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (110,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (166,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
#### § 169.559 Fire pumps.

(a) Each sailing school vessel must be equipped with fire pumps as required in Table [169.559(a)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-169.559#p-169.559(a)).

Table [169.559](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-169.559)(a)—Fire Pumps

| Length | Exposed and partially protected water service | Protected water service |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 65 feet but less than 90 feet | 1 1 | 0 |
| 90 feet but less than 120 feet | 2 1 | 1 1 |
| 120 feet or greater | 3 2 | 1 1 |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 May be driven off a propulsion engine and may be used as a bilge pump. | | |
| 2 Must be driven by a source of power independent of the propulsion engine and may be used as a bilge pump. | | |
| 3 One pump may be driven off a propulsion unit and one pump may be used as a bilge pump. Pumps must be located in separate spaces. | | |

(b) Fire pump capacity must be in accordance with the following:

| Vessel length | Minimum capacity |
| --- | --- |
| Less than 90 ft | 5.5 m3/hr (25 gpm). |
| 90 feet but less than 120 ft | 11.0 m3/hr (50 gpm). |
| Greater than 120 ft | 14.3 m3/hr (66.6 gpm). |

(c) Each fire pump must be fitted with a pressure gage on the discharge side of the pump.

(d) Each vessel must have a hand operated portable fire pump having a capacity of at least 1.1 m3/hr (5 gpm). This pump must be equipped with suction and discharge hose suitable for use in firefighting.
§ 176.920 Exemptions. ( a ) In accordance with Chapter I (General Provisions) Regulation 4, of SOLAS, the Commandant may exempt a vessel, which is not normally engaged on an international voyage but that in exceptional circumstances is required to undertake a single international voyage from any of the requirements of the regulations of SOLAS provided that the vessel complies with safety requirements that are adequate, in the Commandant's opinion, for the voyage that is to be undertaken.
( b ) In accordance with Chapter II-1 (Construction—Subdivision and Stability, Machinery and Electrical Installations) Regulation 1, Chapter II-2 (Construction—Fire Protection, Fire Detection and Fire Extinction) Regulation 1, and Chapter III (Life Saving Appliances and Arrangements) Regulation 2 of SOLAS, the Commandant may exempt a vessel that does not proceed more than 20 miles from the nearest land from any of the specific requirements of Chapters II-1, II-2, and III of SOLAS if the Commandant determines that the sheltered nature and conditions of the voyage are such as to render the application of such requirements unreasonable or unnecessary.
( c ) The Commandant may exempt a vessel from requirements of the regulations of SOLAS in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section upon a written request from the owner or managing operator submitted to the Commandant via the cognizant OCMI.
( d ) When the Commandant grants an exemption to a vessel in accordance with this section, the Commandant will authorize the cognizant OCMI to issue the original SOLAS Exemption Certificate describing the exemption. Subsequent SOLAS Exemption Certificates are issued by the cognizant OCMI unless any changes to the vessel or its operations have occurred that changes the information on the SOLAS Exemption or Passenger Ship Safety Certificates, in which case the Commandant will authorize the cognizant OCMI to reissue the certificate. A SOLAS Exemption Certificate is not valid for longer than the period of the SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate to which it refers.
[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]
#### § 175.560 Appeals.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with § 1.03 in subchapter A of this chapter.
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-5, PageID.33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-5, PageID.34 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 2
#### Remington v. Palmer.

Agency—ratification— *Vendor cmd purchaser. ' ■*

An authority, given hy a vendor to his agent, to pay a tax against the property, if he shall decide that it is a lien like a judgment, *held*not an authority to hind the principal by a promise of future payment.

And the receipt of the purchase-money by the vendor *held*no ratification, in the absence of any evidence that he knew of the making of such promise by his agent. The natural inference, from the mere fact that a purchaser pays the purchase-money, on taking a deed, is that he accepts the title as it then stands.

Motion for a new trial after a nonsuit upon exceptions ordered to be heard in the first, instance at general term. The action was brought in Monroe county by Stephen Remington and another against Oliver H. Palmer to recover the amount of a tax which existed upon land purchased by plaintiffs from defendant and which it was alleged the latter promised to pay.

*J. G. Cochrane,*for plaintiffs.

*W. F. Cogswell,*for defendant.

Gilbert, J.

The head-note states fully all that was passed upon in the opinion. •

*Motion denied.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN AKINDOALEXANDER RUSHING

, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. 1: 23

- cv

- 00298 ( UNA ) ) GEORGE WASHINGTON ) UNIVERSITY HOSPIT A L

, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant

plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. S ee

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues George Washington University

Hospital, also located in the District. He alleges that , in January 2023, defendant and its physicians

refused him medical attention, discriminated against him, and threatened to kill him. He demands

approximately 12 billion dollars in damages. It is unclear whether his claim sounds in tort (e.g.,

medical malpractice) or some thing else altogether.

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdi ction is available

only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts

that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to pl ead such

facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise a ny federal question. Although he passingly refers to

“discrimination,” he does not specify the legal authority under which his rights were purportedly

violated nor does he provide any context to make out a colorable claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556

U.S. 662, 682 (2009) (“bar e assertions” of a “ discrimination claim” are “not entitled to be assumed

true”). Indeed, the court has no information as to how plaintiff was discriminated against or what

damages resulted therefrom.

Second, both plaintiff and defendant are located in the District of Columbia

, so there can

be no diversity jurisdiction

. See Bush v. Butler , 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger , 437 U.S. 365, 373

- 74 (1978) ( “For jurisdiction to exist

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that

the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” ) )

. Therefore, this court

cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

For all of these reasons , th e complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case , are dismissed without

prejudice

. A separate o rder accompanies this memorandum o pinion.

SO ORDERED.

Date: A p ril 14, 2023 

## Tanya S. Chutkan

TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge