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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM E. POWELL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-11033

v. Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF No. 18)

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff William E. Powell, proceeding pro se, filed the instant

action against Defendant Internal Revenue Service, alleging violations of Freedom of

Information Act. (ECF No. 1). Thereafter, on April 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint. (ECF No. 9, 10). On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment

against Defendant. (ECF No. 18). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) a judgment by default may be entered

against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend against an action. FED. R. CIV.

P. 55(b). In order to obtain judgment by default, the proponent must first request the clerk's

entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a). See Hanner v. City of Dearborn Heights, No. 07-15251,

2008 WL 2744860, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2008). Once a default is obtained, the party may

then file for a default judgment by the clerk or by the court. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b). When the

plaintiff’s complaint alleges damages for a sum certain a default judgment by clerk is

appropriate. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(1). “In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a

default judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2). 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 129
In the present action, Plaintiff appears to request a default judgment from this Court

pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) but has failed to first request a clerk’s entry of default pursuant Rule

55(a). Therefore his request for a default judgment is improper. Additionally, the Court notes

that Defendant has since filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment. (ECF No.

18).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 13, 2015

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 July 13, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 130
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Francis L. Simola, Chairman, President and CEO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 10, 2004



/s/ Francis L. Simola

Francis L. Simola

Chairman, President and CEO
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending March 28, 2009

|Filer                              | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|---------------------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|Community Exchange Bancshares Inc. | * 3A1         | Application by Community Exchange Bancshares Inc., Hindman, KY to become a Bank Holding Company by acquiring 100% of the voting shares of Hindman Bancshares Inc., Hindman, KY and its subsidiary Bank of Hindman Inc. | Newspaper:04/27/2009Federal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                         | 04/27/2009   
|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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,558,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,239,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (345,857)
<INVENTORY>                                 13,204,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,380,071
<PP&E>                                      13,956,169
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,513,891)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,711,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,050,668
<BONDS>                                      4,548,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,363
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,068,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,711,459
<SALES>                                     77,491,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,580,908
<CGS>                                       40,004,391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,560,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             212,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,691,697
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,759,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,932,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,932,027
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31298-31299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2803]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


National Security Education Board Members Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a 
forthcoming meeting of the National Security Education Board. The 
purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the 
Security Education Board. The purpose of the meeting is to review and 
make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning 
requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security 
Education Act, Title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

DATES: June 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Holiday Inn Rosslyn at Key Bridge, Shenandoah Room AB, 1800 
North Fort Meyer Drive, Arlington, VA 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kevin Gormley, Program Officer, 
National Security Education Program, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210,

[[Page 31299]]

Rosslyn P.O. Box 20010, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2248; (703) 696-1991. 
Electronic mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdba928f9091988496bd939c88d3989988"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2f5ddc0dfded7cbd9f2dcd3c79cd7d6c7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Security Education Board 
Members meeting is open to public. The public is afforded the 
opportunity to submit written statements associated with NSEP.

    Dated: May 30, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-2803 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES 

COMPANY, et al., 

 Petitioners, 

 Case No. 2:15-mc-50892 

v. District Judge Laurie J. Michelson 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

GDC INCORPORATED, et al., 

 Respondents. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH AS MOOT (DE 2) 

 Petitioner, FCA US LLC, filed this miscellaneous action in the Eastern 

District of Michigan on June 24, 2015, seeking an order quashing the subpoenas 

served by Respondent, GDC Incorporated, in District of Minnesota Case No. 2013-

cv-01287, for depositions of non-parties to occur in the Eastern District of 

Michigan. (DE 1.) On July 6, 2015, this matter was referred to me pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(a). (DE 2.) On August 19, 2015, I requested that Petitioner 

provide a status report, which it timely filed on September 4, 2015. (DE 4.) In the 

status report, Petitioner indicated that the parties were able to reach a resolution in 

this matter and therefore the motion to quash could be “dismissed without 

2:15-mc-50892-LJM-APP Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 166
2

prejudice.” (Id.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to quash is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. (DE 1.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 8, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on September 8, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-mc-50892-LJM-APP Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 167
§ 385.37 Requirement for unrestricted solicitations for discretionary assistance awards. ( a ) *Policy.* It is MarAd policy to maximize the opportunity for prospective recipients to be considered for assistance awards where eligibility is not prescribed by law. Therefore, when eligibility is not prescribed by law or a final program regulation, and when discretionary assistance awards are selected to accomplish a program objective, applications or proposals will be obtained, wherever practicable, by issuance of a written solicitation. When MarAd initiates the solicitation of applications or proposals, eligibility to be considered for discretionary awards will not be restricted by MarAd to one category of recipients or to a single recipient without adequate basis.
( b ) *Justification of restricted eligibility.* Where program legislation explicitly restricts eligibility, e.g., to state governments, no justification is required. When program regulations restrict eligibility beyond the restrictions required by the program legislation, the basis for the restriction shall be set forth in the program rulemaking. 41 CFR 9-3.805-51 shall be used as a guide in preparing the “justification for restricting eligibility.” The reasons offered will be evaluated for consistency with the policy in paragraph (a) of this section, MarAd's overall mission, and the objective of maintaining an open and fair system of making assistance awards.
( c ) *Approvals.* Justifications of restricted eligibility will be signed by the Grants Officer and will be reviewed by Office of General Counsel for legal sufficiency prior to issuance of the restricted solicitation. The signed justification will be filed in official award file.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the annual report of Digital Video Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A
and as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Thomas A. Spanier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Douglas T.
Watson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each, certify, to the best of our knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Digital Video Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Digital Video Systems, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                    |  |                                                                                              
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ Thomas A. Spanier                                                                        
|                    |  |                                                                                              
|Dated:  May 2, 2005 |  | Thomas A. Spanier 
Chief Executive Officer 
Digital Video Systems, Inc.                      
|                    |  |                                                                                              
|                    |  | /s/ Douglas T. Watson                                                                        
|                    |  |                                                                                              
|Dated:  May 2, 2005 |  | Douglas T. Watson 
President and Acting 
Chief Financial Officer 
Digital Video Systems, Inc.

---
#### § 42.07-75 Right of appeal.

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 subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50380, Dec. 6, 1989]
# C_2012151EN.01002401.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/24

---

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-137/12)

2012/C 151/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo, I. Rogalski and R. Vidal Puig, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council decision 2011/853/EU of 29 November 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council decision 2011/853/EU of 29 November 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (1)

1

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the Commission claims that Article 114 TFEU is not an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the decision should have been based on Article 207(4) TFEU which authorises the Council to conclude international agreements in the field of the common commercial policy, as defined in Article 207(1) TFEU. The present convention does not aim to ‘improve the functioning of the internal market’, its principal objective being to ‘facilitate’ or ‘promote’ the provision of services based on conditional access between the European Union and other European countries. It would have a direct and immediate effect on the provision of services based on conditional access and on the trade in illicit devices and on the services relating to those devices. Consequently, the convention falls within the scope of the common commercial policy.

By its second plea, the applicant claims that the European Union’s exclusive external competence (Article 2(1) and 3(1) and (2) TFEU) has been infringed because the Council considered that the conclusion of the convention did not fall within the European Union’s exclusive competence whereas the convention falls within the common commercial policy or, in any case, that the conclusion of the convention is capable of affecting common rules or of altering their scope.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 336, p. 1.

1

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DORMAN, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 15-cv-12552 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED SECOND MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES (ECF No. 191) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AND (2) SETTING FORTH NEXT STEPS IN ACTION 

 On May 5, 2023, the Court held a hearing over video conferencing to hear argument 

on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Second Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 191). For the reasons 

stated on the record during that hearing, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

As the Court set forth on the record, it is further ordered that the parties shall 

complete the depositions of the three witnesses identified on the record by no later than 

August 5, 2023. Plaintiffs shall file a Motion to Amend the Complaint by no later than 

June 20, 2023. Defendant shall respond by July 11, 2023. Plaintiffs shall file a Reply in 

further support of their motion by no later than July 25, 2023. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 5, 2023 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 196, PageID.6912 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on May 5, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 196, PageID.6913 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 2
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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending March 1, 2008

|Filer                          | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|ALLIANCE FINANCIAL CORPORATION | 3A1            | Alliance Financial Corporation, Gastonia, North Carolina, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Alliance Bank & Trust Company, Gastonia, North Carolina.                                                                                                                                                                   | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                     | Not applicable
|Federal Register:              | Not applicable
|BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION    | 4c8* 4c8       | Bank of America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Countrywide Financial Corporation, Calabasas, California, and thereby indirectly acquire 100% of the voting securities of Countrywide Bank, FSB, Alexandria, Virginia, and thereby engage in the business of operating a savings association. | Newspaper:03/19/2008Federal Register:03/31/2008        
|Newspaper:                     | 03/19/2008    
|Federal Register:              | 03/31/2008    

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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