alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DONALD DOWD, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 

DIRECTV, LLC, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG 

District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO FILE OVERSIZED COMBINED 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkts. 49, 50 and 52) 

Plaintiffs hereby move this Court for an Order granting Plaintiffs’ request to 

file an oversized Combined Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 

49, 50 and 52). In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs state: 

1. On May 28, 2015, each of the three Defendants in this action 

(DirectSat USA, DirecTV, LLC and Multiband Corp.) filed separate Motions to 

Dismiss, each 25 pages in length, for a total of 75 pages. 

2. In the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, Plaintiffs propose 

to file a Combined Opposition to Defendants’ three Motions to Dismiss totaling 32 

pages in length. 

3. Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court’s order granting Plaintiffs a 

7-page extension of this Court’s 25-page limit pertaining to response briefs set 

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 57 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 3933
forth in L.R. 7.1(d)(2)(A). If granted, Plaintiffs’ Combined Opposition to 

Defendants’ three Motions to Dismiss will total no more than 32 pages. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), the undersigned certifies that Plaintiffs’ 

counsel has sent written requests via email to Defendants’ respective counsel to 

inquire whether Defendants oppose this motion but did not receive any response to 

said emails. 

Dated: June 15, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 

s/George A. Hanson 

George A. Hanson, admitted PHV 

460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 

Kansas City, Missouri 64112 

Telephone: 816-714-7100 

Facsimile: 816-714-7101 

Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com 

Ryan D. O’Dell, admitted PHV 

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP

500 West C Street, Suite 1750 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: 619-400-5822 

Facsimile: 619-400-5832 

Email: odell@stuevesiegel.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 57 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 3934
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 15, 2015, a copy of the foregoing document was 

filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to 

accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may 

access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. 

s/George A. Hanson 

George A. Hanson 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 57 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3935
August 3 , 2015

Mr. Jonathan Rupprecht

Rupprechet Law P.A.

324 Datura Street, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Dear Mr. Rupprecht :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of F ederal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your M ay 15 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 169 3 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the reques t would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must sen d the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not h ear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 25
          - [IB Docket 06-160; DA 07-25]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period.

# SUMMARY:

On August 18, 2006, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (71 FR 56923, September 28, 2006) (NPRM) in the proceeding captioned above. The NPRM seeks comment from the public on proposed licensing procedures and service rules for satellites providing Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service. The NPRM also seeks comment on licensing non-nine-degree-spaced DBS applications.

                        On December 22, 2006, SES Americom, Inc. filed a Motion for Extension of Time, requesting the Commission to extend the reply comment filing deadline in this proceeding. SES Americom, Inc. stated that an extension would enable the parties to the proceeding to provide a more complete record for review, considering the important policy and                               ( print page 3103)                            technical issues raised in the proceeding.                    

The Commission concurred that the issues raised in the proceeding are complex, technical, and of great importance to the DBS service and to direct-to-home satellite consumers throughout the United States. Thus, the Commission granted SES Americom, Inc.'s request, and extended the reply comment pleading deadline to January 25, 2007. The Commission stated that the public interest will be served by the extension to enable the filing of a more complete record in this proceeding.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, the request of SES Americom, Inc. is granted.

The deadline for filing reply comments in this proceeding is extended to January 25, 2007.

This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to sections 0.51 and 0.261 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.51, 0.261.

Federal Communications Commission.

Robert G. Nelson,

Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau.

[FR Doc. 07-213  Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
§ 188.15-5 Design of vessels. ( a ) In order not to inhibit design and application the Commandant may accept vessels of unusual, unique, special, or exotic design, both new and for conversion, after it is shown to his satisfaction that such a vessel is at least as safe as any vessel which meets the standards required by this subchapter.
#### § 272.5 Prior instructions superseded.

The provisions of this part supersede any provisions of MARAD Circular Letters and Accounting Instructions applicable to M&R and dated prior to the effective date of these regulations to the extent that the provisions of this part may be inconsistent with the provisions of such prior instructions.
EXHIBIT 11.1


ICY SPLASH FOOD AND BEVERAGE, INC.

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,    NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,

                                                    2000             1999             2000              1999
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------
<S>                                             <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net (loss) income                               $   (19,812)      $    16,146      $   (52,234)      $    45,546
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding               6,600,000         6,600,000        6,600,000         6,600,000
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Basic earnings per share                        $      --         $      --        $   (.01)         $    .01
                                                ===========       ===========      ===========       ===========
Diluted earnings per share:

Net (loss) income                               $   (19,812)      $    16,146      $   (52,234)      $    45,546
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Weighted average and dilutive shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding           6,600,000         6,600,000        6,600,000         6,600,000
    Dilutive shares (Antidilutive in 2000)             --             950,000             --             950,000
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------
                                                  6,600,000         7,550,000        6,600,000         7,550,000
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Diluted earnings per share                      $      --         $      --        $   (.01)         $    .01
                                                ===========       ===========      ===========       ===========
</TABLE>


                                       9
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         List of Subsidiaries of Issuer


                                                          Percentage of
                                                         Shares Owned by
                                                             Issuer
                                                         ---------------
Micro-Filtration, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan               100%
Numation  Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                        90%
Numatech Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                         88%
I.A.E. Incorporated; incorporated in Michigan                  100%
Ultra Air Products, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan             100%
Microsmith, Inc.; incorporated in Arizona                      100%
Numatics B.V.; organized in the Netherlands                    100%
Numatics S.A. de C.V.; organized in Mexico                      99%
Numatics S.A.R.L.; organized in France                          99%
Numatics Ltd.; organized in the United Kingdom                  99%
Numatics Ltd.; organized in Canada                             100%
NAC Beteilingungs GmbH; organized in Germany                   100%
Numatics GmbH; organized in Germany                            100%
Numatics K.F.T.; organized in Hungary                          100%
Numatics Ltd; organized in Taiwan                               91%
Numatics S.R.L.; organized in Italy                             99%
Univer GmbH; organized in Germany                              100%
Empire Air Systems, Inc.; incorporated in New York             100%
Numatics Spain S.L., organized in Spain                        100%
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50135 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEITH VERNON HOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-91-CR-168-1

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Keith Hoster has appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his prison term, which he requested on authority of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm. Hoster asserts, based on Amendment 484 to the Sentencing Guidelines, § 2D1.1, comment. (n.1), that the 110 pounds of phenylacetic acid should not have been included in the total drug quantity used to determine his base offense level. He reasons that acid is not a "drug" but a "chemical," which cannot be counted because it never was processed into amphetamine. HosterNo. 95-50135 -2-
asserts that this court's opinion on his direct appeal erroneously provided a "made up" method to allow such calculation, in violation of the Guidelines. Amendment 484 is not applicable to Hoster's sentence because the phenylacetic acid was not and was not treated as a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance," to quote a footnote to the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). The district court properly considered Hoster's purchase of phenylacetic acid as relevant conduct. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2); see United States v. Hoster , 988 F.2d 1374, 1379 (5th Cir. 1993). Hoster's contention that this court decided his direct appeal incorrectly is foreclosed by rules of stare decisis. First, a panel of this court may not overrule a prior dispositive panel decision unless there has been a superseding decision of the court sitting en banc or of the Supreme Court. United States v. Crouch , 51 F.3d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, a panel of this Court will "follow the prior decisions in a case as the law of that case" unless "(i) the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, (ii) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or (iii) the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice." Alberti v. Klevenhagen , 46 F.3d 1347, 1351 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, this court will not reexamine any issue of law which the court determined upon Hoster's direct appeal.
AFFIRMED.
#### Edward D. Davis and others, *Respondents, v.*Henry C. Brooks, *Appellan*t.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Brady, J.
#### § 30.10-14 Combination carrier—TB/ALL.

The term *combination carrier* means a tank vessel designed to carry alternatively liquid and solid cargoes in bulk.

[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3843, Jan. 26, 1976]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2061]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID 100 1220MA 214A: DBG071007]


Notice of Public Meeting: Resource Advisory Council to the Boise 
District, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise 
District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting as 
indicated below.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 22, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m. and 
adjourning at 1 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Boise District 
Office located at 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho. Public comment 
periods will be held at intervals throughout the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MJ Byrne, Public Affairs Officer and 
RAC Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 
83705, Telephone (208) 384-3393.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and 
management issues associated with public land management in 
southwestern Idaho.
    The Board will formally approve the members of the new RAC 
Recreation Subcommittee, including one non-RAC member. Elections of 
officers for the 2007 fiscal year will be held. The RAC will be given a 
brief status report on both the Snake River Birds of Prey National 
Conservation Resource Management Plan (RMP), and the Bruneau RMP. Hot 
Topics will be discussed by the District Manager and Field Office 
managers will provide highlights on activities in their offices.
    Agenda items and location may change due to changing circumstances, 
including wildlife emergencies. All meetings are open to the public. 
The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal 
Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public 
comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and 
time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. 
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact the BLM Coordinator as provided above. 
Expedited publication is requested to give the public adequate notice.

    Dated: April 20, 2007.
David Wolf,
Acting, District Manager.
[FR Doc. 07-2061 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

#### § 2.20-50 Repairs or alterations in lifesaving or fire prevention equipment.

No repairs or alterations shall be made to any lifesaving or fire-detecting or fire-extinguishing equipment, except in an emergency, without advance notice to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. See §§ 78.33-10 and 97.30-10 of this chapter.

[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51041, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58341, Sept. 30, 2004]
§ 310.2 Federal assistance. ( a ) The Maritime Administrator may enter into agreements with the present or later established schools (not more than one such school in each State or Territory) meeting the requirements of the Act to make annual payments, for not in excess of four (4) years in the case of each such agreement, to be used for the maintenance and support of such Schools. The amount of each such annual payment shall be not less than the amount furnished to such School for its maintenance and support by the State or Territory in which such academy is located or, in the case of a Regional maritime academy an amount equal to the amount furnished to such academy for its maintenance and support by all States or Territories, r both, cooperating to support such School, but shall not exceed $100,000. However, the amount shall not exceed $25,000, if such academy does not meet the requirements of subsection 1304(f)(2) of the Act.
( b ) Pursuant to the provisions of section 1304(c) of the Act, The Maritime Administrator, may furnish to any State or Territory of the United States for use as a Training Ship by a school any suitable vessel that is under his or her jurisdiction, obtain such vessel from any department or agency of the United States, or may construct and furnish a suitable vessel, if such vessel is not available.
( c ) The Maritime Administrator may pay to any School the amount of the costs of all fuel consumed by a Training Ship furnished under the provisions of section 1304(c)(1) of the Act while such vessel is being used for training purposes by such a School, if such funds have been appropriated and are available for that purpose.
( d ) As a condition to receiving any payments or the use of any Training Ship under the provisions of the Act, the school shall comply with the requirements of the Act and this subpart and shall agree in writing to conform to such requirements.
( e ) As a further condition to receiving any payments or the use of any Training Ship, a School shall agree that, with respect to the training program for merchant marine officers, consistent with provisions of the Act, the 1958 Act, and the Agreement, it will comply with the following provisions of law and implementing regulations duly promulgated thereunder, to the extent applicable, including, but not limited to: Title VI, Civil Rights Act, 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101); the Vocational Rehabilitation Act—section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794); and 15 CFR part 8. Each school shall give assurances that it will take any and all measures necessary to effectuate compliance.
§ 310.52 General. ( a ) Midshipmen are appointed to the Academy for training to prepare them to become officers in the U.S. merchant marine. The Academy, located at Kings Point, New York, is maintained by the Government as a part of the Administration. After successful completion of the 4-year course of study, a graduate of the Academy shall receive a Bachelor of Science degree and a merchant marine license as either a third officer or third assistant engineer (or both licenses upon completion of a special curriculum and passing the respective license examinations) issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. If qualified, a graduate may be commissioned as an officer in a reserve component of an armed force of the United States.
( b ) Midshipmen entering the Academy after April 1, 1982, are required by the Act to sign an agreement committing them to service obligations following the date of graduation. The terms of the service obligation contract are set forth in § 310.58 of this subpart.
#### § 27.103 Preemption.

The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the same field.

[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48246, July 22, 2016]
§ 126.150 Repairs and alterations. ( a ) Except in an emergency, no repairs or alterations to the hull or machinery, or to equipment that affects the safety of the OSV, may be made without notice to the cognizant OCMI in the inspection zone where the repairs or alterations are to be made. When the repairs or alterations have been made, notice must be given to this OCMI as soon as practicable.
( b ) When emergency repairs or alterations have been made as permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, the master, owner, or operator must notify this OCMI as soon as practicable after the emergency.
( c ) Except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section, drawings of repairs or alterations must be approved, before work starts, by the cognizant OCMI or, when necessary, by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center (CO, MSC). Drawings will not be needed if deemed unnecessary by this OCMI or by the CO, MSC.
( d ) When the cognizant OCMI deems inspection necessary, the repairs or alterations must be inspected by a marine inspector.
( e ) Submission of drawings is not required for repairs in kind, but the applicable drawings approved under subpart A of part 127 of this subchapter must be made available to the marine inspector upon request.