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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SALAMI,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 15-12248

Honorable Terrence G. Berg

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

DEPUTY CLEMENTS, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER

On August 28, 2015, this Court ordered that plaintiff Michael Salami, 

a prisoner proceeding pro se, file his amended complaint, compiling all his 

various proposed amendments, with the Court on or before September 10, 

2015. [Dkt. 46]. On September 8, 2015, the Court received notice that 

Salami had been relocated to another correctional facility. He requested 

that all orders filed since August 20, 2015, be re-mailed to his new address, 

which allows the Court to infer that he did not receive the August 28th 

Order. In addition, because Salami is located in segregation, he requested 

a 14-day extension to any briefing schedule, as he requires extra time due 

to delays caused by being housed in segregation. 

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Salami’s amended 

complaint is due ON OR BEFORE October 8, 2015. Defendants’ 

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 53 Filed 09/10/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 145
amended answer will be due fourteen days after service of Salami’s 

amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 10, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

4:15-cv-12248-TGB-EAS Doc # 53 Filed 09/10/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 146
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANE CRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENESEE COUNTY, ET AL.

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 15-12321

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiff Jane Cramer filed suit against Defendants Genesee County, Genesee County

Sheriff's Department, and various officers employed by the County. The Complaint alleges

violations of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, Plaintiff

asserts three state law claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, and gross negligence. 

Seeing as the parties to this matter are non-diverse, this Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the latter claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 716 (U.S. 1973); Padilla v. City of

Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), all

of Plaintiff's claims based on state law, including all claims found in Count III, IV, and V are

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court will retain jurisdiction over

Plaintiff's federal claims only.

2:15-cv-12321-NGE-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 17
SO ORDERED

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: July 23, 2015

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

on July 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-12321-NGE-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GOLDEN SKY SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,880
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (852)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,526
<PP&E>                                          10,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,611)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,161
<BONDS>                                        195,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   313,545
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               101,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,209
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (88,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (88,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,935)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (91,195)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1





i2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


CONSENT OF ANDERSEN LLP





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





As independent public accountants, we hereby
consent to the incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Companys previously filed registration statements, Reg. Nos. 333-03703, 333-27009, 333-28147, 333-53667, 333-85791, 333-31342, 333-96341, 333-36478, 333-40038,
333-43838, 333-49180, 333-59106 and 333-67868.





| | /s/ | ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
| | --- | -------------------




Dallas, Texas


March 26, 2002







1
#### § 502.312 Answer to complaint.

The respondent shall file with the Commission an answer within twenty-five (25) days of service of the complaint and shall serve a copy of said answer upon complainant. The answer shall admit or deny each matter set forth in the complaint. Matters not specifically denied will be deemed admitted. Where matters are urged in defense, the answer shall be accompanied by appropriate affidavits, other documents, and memoranda. [Rule 312.]

[49 FR 44369, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47394, Dec. 4, 1984]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending June 24, 2006

|Filer                              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | End of Comment Period                                  
|---------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|SOUTH SHORE MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY | 4c8            | Notice submitted by South Shore Mutual Holding Company, Weymouth, Massachusetts, to acquire indirectly through its sole bank subsidiary, South Shore Cooperative Bank, Weymouth, Massachusetts, a 40% interest in Stonebridge Mortgage Company, LLC,  Raynham, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                         | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                  | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 11-1108 September Term, 2016

 FILED: DECEMBER 23, 2016

UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION,

PETITIONER

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with 11-1124, 11-1134, 11-1142, 11-1145, 11-1159, 11-1165, 11-1172, 11-1174,

11-1181, 13-1086, 13-1087, 13-1091, 13-1092, 13-1096, 13-1097, 13-1098, 13-1099, 13-1100,

13-1103

____________________________________

No. 11-1141

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL,

PETITIONER

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with 11-1182, 11-1207, 11-1208, 13-1105, 13-1107 

On Petition for Panel Rehearing
Before: HENDERSON, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

J U D G M E N T

These causes came to be heard on the petition of the Environmental Protection Agency

for panel rehearing as to remedy, and the responses thereto. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of this court filed July 29, 2016 remain

in effect as to No. 11-1125, et al., American Forest & Paper Association, Inc., et al. v. EPA, and

the above-captioned cases, in accordance with the opinion filed July 29, 2016. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the numeric MACT standards set in the

Major Boilers Rule for new and existing sources in each of the eighteen subcategories be

remanded without vacatur for the agency to conduct further proceedings consistent with the

court's prior opinion issued July 29, 2016, in accordance with the opinion issued here in this date. 

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

Date: December 23, 2016

Opinion Filed Per Curiam
# C_2012065EN.01001602.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/16

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

(Case T-664/11)

2012/C 65/31

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Mediterranea SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 28.410 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 rail, lifelines, or bulwarks must be at least 391 ⁄ 2 inches (1 meter) from the deck, except, where this height would 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 7 feet (2.3 meters). 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 would impede normal fishing 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 15 inches (0.38 meters). The opening below the lowest course must not be more than 9 inches (0.23 meters). 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 normal access.
( g ) A stern trawler must have doors, gates, or other protective arrangements at the top of the stern ramp at least as high as adjacent bulwarks or 391 ⁄ 2 inches (1 meter), whichever is less.
[CGD 88-079, 56 FR 40393, Aug. 14, 1991; 56 FR 49822, Oct. 1, 1991]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SPINE, PLLC, 

CASE NO. 14-CV-14729

Plaintiff, HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

and

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL

HOSPITAL, LLC, d/b/a MICHIGAN

SURGICAL HOSPITAL,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign

corporation,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER PERMITTING INTERVENING

PLAINTIFF SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL

HOSPITAL, LLC TO FILE INTERVENING COMPLAINT

This is a first-party no-fault action brought by a healthcare provider to recover

personal injury protection benefits for services it rendered to Otis McCary after his

involvement in a motor vehicle accident. On April 23, 2015, the court held a Rule 16

scheduling conference with the parties. At the conference, counsel for Southeast Michigan

Surgical Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Michigan Surgical Hospital (the “intervening plaintiff”),

appeared and informed the court that intervening plaintiff had properly filed an intervening

complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court prior to defendant being served with plaintiff’s

complaint, and prior to removal of the action to this court. Counsel for the intervening

-1-

2:14-cv-14729-GCS-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 205
plaintiff orally requested permission to file the intervening complaint in this court. Following

the discussion with counsel at the Rule 16 conference, and the court being fully advised

in the premises, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that intervening plaintiff Southeast Michigan Surgical

Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Michigan Surgical Hospital, shall be permitted to file its intervening

complaint in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:14-cv-14729-GCS-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 206
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-K AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>          18,551,354
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>         35,556,235
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     66,285
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>            1,402,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 37,025,188
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>       1,542,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>             1,542,456
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>       18,477,851
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             400,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             400,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>       17,004,881
<NET-ASSETS>                   35,482,732
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                  93,507
<OTHER-INCOME>                      5,765
<EXPENSES-NET>                 (1,522,706)
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>        (1,423,434)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>          165,932
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        (773,777)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>          (2,031,279)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>             316,227
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>         (2,347,506)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>             409,036
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                214,013
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                 1,528,253
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>           36,656,485
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  46
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (2)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                    43
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                      4.15
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>          2,814,645
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                    7
<FN>
<F1>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is 
not allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not 
taxable.  Only taxable gains or losses are allocated in accordance 
with the Partnership Agreement.
</FN>

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Highlands Bankshares, Inc. registration statement on Form S-3D (Registration No. 333-83618) of our report dated January 31, 2006 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, and for the periods then ended.  Such report is included in the Highlands Bankshares, Inc. 2005 Annual Report to Stockholders, which is filed as exhibit 13 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.



[ex231002.gif]

BROWN, EDWARDS & COMPANY, L.L.P.





Bristol, Virginia

March 23, 2006