alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PS8 

(8/88)

United States District Court

for the

Eastern District of Michigan

U.S.A. vs. NICOLETTI, Paul Docket No. 15-20382-1 

Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release

COMES NOW David E. Nicoloff, PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER presenting an official report 

upon the conduct of defendant NICOLETTI, Paul, who was placed under pretrial release supervision on a 

$10,000 Unsecured Bond by the Honorable R. Steven Whalen sitting in the court at Detroit, Michigan, on 

September 18, 2015, under the following conditions:

1. Report to Pretrial Services as directed

2. Travel Restricted to the continental United States

3. Surrender any passport to Pretrial Services by noon on September 21, 2015 by 4:00pm

4. Do not obtain a passport or other international travel documents

5. Get medical or psychiatric treatment

6. Do not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon

7. Surrender Concealed Pistol License to Pretrial Services by noon on September 21, 2015 by 4:00pm

Respectfully presenting petition for action of court and for cause as follows: 

Pretrial Services was notified that additional bond conditions were put on the record after the defendant was found 

guilty. These conditions included travel restricted to the Eastern District of Michigan, the defendant must notify 

the State Bar of Michigan of his conviction, the defendant must refrain from the practice of law anywhere in the 

United States, and execute release for medical records.

PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER the addition to the defendant’s bond conditions of restricted 

travel to the Eastern District of Michigan, the defendant must notify the State Bar of Michigan of his conviction by 

June 30, 2019, the defendant must refrain from the practice of law anywhere in the United States, and the 

defendant must execute release for medical records. 

ORDER OF COURT

Considered and ordered this 14 day of May, 

2019 and ordered filed and made a part of the 

records in the above case. 

s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Judge Victoria A. 

Roberts

I Declare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on May 7, 2019 

_ ___/s/ David Nicoloff______

U.S. Pretrial Services Officer

Place: Detroit, Michigan

Date: May 9, 2019

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 135 filed 05/14/19 PageID.1284 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

DOROTHY MAE ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 15-11674

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES 

LLC, ET AL.,

 Defendants.

____________________________________/

AMENDED NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 

You are hereby scheduled to appear on MAY 4, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. , in the

Courtroom of the Honorable Marianne O. Battani, 277 U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette,

Detroit, Michigan, for a scheduling conference on the above case. 

THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY

CANCELLED, AND COUNSEL SHOULD NOT APPEAR, IF THE JOINT

DISCOVERY PLAN IS ELECTRONICALLY FILED PRIOR TO THE

SCHEDULED CONFERENCE DATE. A SCHEDULING ORDER WILL

AUTOMATICALLY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT UPON RECEIPT OF THE

FILED PLAN. 

 PLEASE DO NOT CALL TO CONFIRM THIS PROCEDURE. 

Prior to the date of the scheduling conference, Plaintiff is directed to convene a

meeting with all counsel for the purpose of preparing a joint discovery plan in accordance

with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f). The joint discovery plan may be submitted to the Court at the

conference or electronically filed as noted below. In the event the parties cannot agree on a plan,

each side must submit a proposed plan at the conference.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss the following during the conference:

1. A brief summary of the case and issues;

2. Subject matter jurisdiction;

3. Relationship, if any, to other cases;

4. Amount of time necessary for the discovery process - generally three to four

months from the date of answer is allowed in the ordinary case;

5. Necessity of amendments to pleadings, additional parties, third-party complaints,

expert testimony, et cetera;

1

2:15-cv-11674-MOB-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 37
6. Anticipated motions;

7. Use of Case Evaluation (see LR 16.3) or other methods of alternate dispute

resolution.

PLEASE NOTE:

CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS: Pursuant to LR 83.4. Counsel should complete and

electronically file, where appropriate, the Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations form.

CASE EVALUATION: If the parties consent to Case Evaluation under LR 16.3, the Consent to

Case Evaluation form must be electronically filed.

DISCOVERY: Counsel should commence the discovery process immediately and not wait for

receipt of the Scheduling Order. Parties are bound by FED.R.CIV.P. 30(d)(2) concerning

depositions and FED.R.CIV.P. 33(a) limiting the number of interrogatories.

PRETRIAL PRACTICES and FORMS:

Required forms and pretrial practices for Judge Battani are available on the District Court

website (copy and paste link below).

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=chambers&judgeid=1

Date: February 19, 2016 s/Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

 313-234-2627

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I certify that a copy of this order was served electronically upon all parties of record.

 s/Kay Doaks 

 Case Manager

 

Dated: February 19, 2016 

2

2:15-cv-11674-MOB-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 38
#### § 45.111 Strength of bulkheads at ends of superstructures.

Bulkheads at ends of enclosed superstructures must have sufficient strength to withstand impact of boarding seas.
#### James W. Murphy, Respondent, *v.*John C. Orr and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Hykman, J., not sitting.
§ 36.30-1 Lagged tanks—TB/ALL. ( a ) Lagged tanks shall have part of the lagging removed on the lower portion of the cargo tanks as directed by the marine inspector, at least once every eight years for external examination.
( b ) [Reserved]
# C_2013114EN.01002002.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker

(Case C-104/12) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2)(a) - Right to deduct input tax - Need for a direct and immediate link between an input and an output transaction - Criterion for determining that link - Services of lawyers performed in the context of criminal proceedings for corruption brought in a personal capacity against the managing director and main partner of a limited company)

2013/C 114/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Köln-Nord

Applicant:

Defendant: Wolfram Becker

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 17(2)(a) and 22(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Creation and extent of the right to deduct — Need for a direct and immediate link between the economic activity of the taxable person and the supply of a service — Services provided by lawyers in the context of criminal proceedings relating to corruption charges brought against the managing director and principal executive officer of a public limited company

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The existence of a direct and immediate link between a given transaction and the taxable person’s activity as a whole for the purposes of determining whether the goods and services were used by the latter ‘for the purposes of taxable transactions’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, depends on the objective content of the goods or services acquired by that taxable person.

In this case, the supplies of lawyers’ services, whose purpose is to avoid criminal penalties against natural persons, managing directors of a taxable undertaking, do not give that undertaking the right to deduct as input tax the VAT due on the services supplied.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

1

---
#### ANNA VALIANT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PLAZA REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND HELLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND BERNARD MILLER, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

For the plaintiff, *Joseph C. Cassini.*

For the defendants, *Saul & Joseph JE. Cohn.*

*341Pee Cuexam.

This is an appeal of the Plaza Realty Company from a judgment for damages entered on a verdict of a jury. The ease as originally made on the pleadings charged the appellant with negligence in the maintenance of a coal-hole in the sidewalk; but as the proofs came in, the court held that there was no evidence to charge the landowner on that point. There was a motion for nonsuit on the ground of variance which the judge refused, and allowed an amendment to charge the owner with defective original construction. There was evidence tending to support this charge because the testimony indicated that the coal-hole cover was new but would tilt and let the passerby down into the hole unless stepped on in the exact center.

Of the eleven grounds of appeal there is only one that properly raises a ruling for review; the others are all indefinite and therefore unavailable. The last ground, however, is that the trial court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff at the close of the plaintiff’s case. We conclude that the non-suit was properly denied. As the evidence stood it indicated an improper construction of the coal-hole and that the appellant was the abutting owner. This was enough to raise a *prima facie*case against the appellant, and inasmuch as the court in its discretion was entitled to allow the amendment so long as there was no injurious surprise, the evidence is within the pleadings as amended and consequently the judgment must be affirmed.
J

~~~ ED STq T

~ S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY o 

# ~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

0 +1_14 

# PROj fO

_ JUL 2 3 2013

Mr. J. R. Stroble Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Dear Mr. Stroble: OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

This is in response to your July 22, 2013, request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) draft recertification memo to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterizing transuranic (TRU) waste at Hanford. Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE TRU waste generator sites. Since September 2011, the contact-handled (CH) TRU waste characterization program implemented by Hanford-CCP has been suspended due to funding issues. Once funding limitations have been resolved and waste characterization activities resume, CBFO plans to conduct a recertification audit as a basis forreinstating authority to perform waste characterization activities and continue shipments from HanfordCCP. EPA will also conduct an inspection to confirm that Hanford-CCP can adequately implement theCH TRU waste characterization program which EPA approved on December 21, 2010 (see A-98-49; IIA4-138 in the EPA Air pocket). Between December 2010 and September 2011, EPA has also received and reviewed Hanford-CCP's quarterly tiering reports covering Tier 2 changes to the waste characterization program and found all changes made to be acceptable.Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft recertification memo for HanfordCCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.

Sincerely,

Rajani Joglekar Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Internet Address (URL) - http /lwww.epa gov RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc:

Joe Franco, CBFO Tom Morgan, CBFO NTP Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Marcus Pinzel, CBFO NTP Site Documents
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: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending June 16, 2007

|Filer                     | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|GRANITE BANCSHARES, INC.  | * 3A1          | Granite Bancshares, Inc., to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Granite Community Bank, N.A., both of Granite Bay, California. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/06/2007   
|Newspaper:                | Not available 
|Federal Register:         | 07/06/2007    
|HANMI BANK                | * Branch       | Hanmi Bank, Los Angeles, California, to establish a branch facility at 9300 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California.                            | Newspaper:06/26/2007Federal Register:Not applicable  
|Newspaper:                | 06/26/2007    
|Federal Register:         | Not applicable
|HERITAGE BANK OF COMMERCE | * Branch       | Heritage Bank of Commerce, San Jose, California, to establish a branch facility at 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, California.      | Newspaper:06/21/2007Federal Register:Not applicable  
|Newspaper:                | 06/21/2007    
|Federal Register:         | Not applicable
|WCB Holdings, Inc.        | * 3A1          | WCB Holdings, Inc., to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Western Commercial Bank, both of Woodland Hills, California.         | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                | Not available 
|Federal Register:         | Not available 

## 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
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

#### WILLIAM WILLIAMS, PETITIONER, v. YELLOW TAXI CAB COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

A claim petition having been regularly filed in the above-entitled cause wherein it is alleged that petitioner is suffering from an increased disability, and it appearing from the inspection of the records that the petitioner claims to have suffered an accident consisting of the inhalation of carbon monoxide gas from the exhaust of an automobile motor, and it further appearing that this claim was disputed by the respondent and that it was further disputed whether or not the petitioner was suffering from any condition as a result of the alleged accident, and that it was the opinion of a number of physicians that the heart condition from which the petitioner suffered, could not he the result of carbon monoxide poisoning, and it further appearing that said claim had been previously adjusted according to the terms o£ a certain compromise agreement, wherein petitioner was to receive and did receive twelve and one-half per cent, of total disability plus an allowance for medical expenses and counsel fee.

It is ordered that the said petition seeking compensation for increased disability be and the same hereby is dismissed on the ground that the said compromise agreement was fully and fairly entered into and constitutes a final adjudication of the claim of said petitioner.

Harry J. Goas,

*Deputy Commissioner.*
**The United StatesCommission on Civil Rights**The United States Commission onCivil Rights, first created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and reestablishedby the United States Commission on Civil Rights Act of 1983, is an independent,bipartisan agency of the Federal Government. By the terms of the 1983 act, asamended by the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, the Commission ischarged with the following duties pertaining to discrimination or denials of theequal protection of the laws based on race, color, religion, sex, age,disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice:  investigation of individual discriminatory denials of theright  to vote; study and collectionof information relating to discrimination or denials of the equal protection ofthe law; appraisal of the laws and policies of the United States with respect todiscrimination or denials of equal protection of the law; maintenance of anational clearinghouse for information respecting discrimination or denials ofequal protection of the law; investigation of patterns or practices of fraud ordiscrimination in the conduct of Federal elections; and preparation and issuanceof public service announcements and advertising campaigns to discouragediscrimination or denials of equal protection of the law. The Commission is alsorequired to submit reports to the President and the Congress at such times asthe Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deem desirable. 

  

**The State AdvisoryCommittees**An Advisory Committee to theUnited States Commission on Civil Rights has been established in each of the 50States and the District of Columbia pursuant to section 105(c) of the CivilRights Act of 1957 and section 3(d) of the Civil Rights Commission AmendmentsAct of 1994.  The AdvisoryCommittees are made up of responsible persons who serve without compensation.  Their functions under their mandate from the Commission areto:  advise the Commission of allrelevant information concerning their respective States on matters within thejurisdiction of the Commission; advise the Commission on matters of mutualconcern in the preparation of reports of the Commission to the President and theCongress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals,public and private organizations, and public officials upon matters pertinent toinquiries conducted by the State Advisory Committee; initiate and forward adviceand recommendations to the Commission upon matters in which the Commission shallrequest the assistance of the State Advisory Committee; and attend, asobservers, any open hearing or conference that the Commission may hold withinthe State.
§ 327.24 Actions by claimant. ( a ) *Form of claim.* The claim must meet the requirements of this section.
( b ) *Presentation.* The claim must be presented in writing to the Office of Chief Counsel, Attn. Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
**Exhibit
      15.1**





November
      13, 200 8





American
      Medical Alert Corp.


Oceanside,
      New York





We
      have
      reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
      Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information
      of
      American Medical Alert Corp. and Subsidiaries for the fiscal periods ended
      September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, as indicated in our report dated
      November 11, 2008. Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
      on that information.





We
      are
      aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, is incorporated
      by
      reference in the following Registration Statements:




·
            Registration
                Statement No. 33-48385 on Form S-8;


·
            Registration
                Statement No. 33-91806 on Form S-8;


·
            Registration
                Statement No. 333-53029 on Form
                S-8;


·
            Registration
                Statement No. 333-70626 on Form
                S-8;


·
            Registration
                Statement No. 333-130811 on Form S-8;
                and


·
            Registration
                Statement No. 333-88192 on Form
                S-3.





We
      also
      are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
      Securities Act of 1933, as amended, is not considered a part of the Registration
      Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
      certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
      Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





/s/
      Margolin, Winer & Evens LLP





Margolin,
      Winer & Evens LLP


Garden
      City, New York
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.                  

###### Postal Service Board of Governors

# Date of Meeting:

May 1, 2007. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Previous Announcement:

72 FR 20149, April 23, 2007. 

# Addition:

Postal Regulatory Commission Opinion and Recommended Decision on Reconsideration in Docket No. R2006-1. 

At its closed meeting on May 1, 2007, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add this item to the agenda of its closed meeting and that no earlier announcement was possible. The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service certified that in her opinion discussion of this item could be properly closed to public observation. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Wendy A. Hocking, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. 

Wendy A. Hocking, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-2378 Filed 5-9-07; 4:17 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M