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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v.

MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIBLE 

COINS AND MEDALS SEIZED IN 

JANUARY 2012 FROM REAL 

PROPERTY LOCATED

ON LAKESHORE STREET, WEST 

BLOOMFIELD, MICHIGAN, et al.

 Defendant in Rem.

_________________________________

)

)

) Civil No. 1:15-cv-12124

)

) Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

) Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

DECLARATION OF PUBLICATION

Notice of Civil Forfeiture was posted on an official government internet site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on June 18, 2015, 

as required by Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or 

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, as evidenced by Attachment 1.

Case 1:15-cv-12124-TLL-PTM ECF No. 32, PageID.200 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:15-cv-12124-TLL-PTM ECF No. 32, PageID.201 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:15-cv-12124-TLL-PTM ECF No. 32, PageID.202 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:15-cv-12124-TLL-PTM ECF No. 32, PageID.203 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:15-cv-12124-TLL-PTM ECF No. 32, PageID.204 Filed 07/22/15 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:15-cv-12124-TLL-PTM ECF No. 32, PageID.205 Filed 07/22/15 Page 6 of 6
#### Hayes *v.*The State.

Submitted July 16,

Decided July 27, 1906.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Littlejohn. Sumter superior court. May 26, 1906.

*Allen Port*and *Hollis Fort,*for plaintiff in error.

*John G. Hart, attorney-general, F. A. Hooper, solicitor-general,*.and *Allen Fort Jr.,*contra.

■Cobb, E. J.

1. On a trial for murder, the fact that the deceased, has testified against the accused on a trial for gaming is relevant as tending to show motive; and the indictment against the accused for gaming and the sentence founded thereon are admissible in evidence. Especially is' such evidence admissible when it appears that the accused has made a threat against the deceased, stating at the time the threat was made that the deceased had “turned him up” for gambling. *Butler*v. *State,*91 *Ga.*161 (1), and case cited.

2. When on such a trial a witness for the prosecution has testified that the accused fired the fatal shot, an indictment against the witness, charging him with the homicide, returned by the same grand jury that indicted the accused, is admissible to discredit the witness, but for no other purpose; and it is in such a case not erroneous for the judge to instruct the jury that it is not to be considered for any other purpose.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.*
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: 7
Federal Reserve Bank of: Chicago

## Filings received during the week ending July 25, 2009

|Filer             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|C-B-G, INC.       | * 3A3         | C-B-G, Inc., West Liberty, Iowa, to acquire up to $5,000,000 in additional stock and increase its ownership to up to 50.01 percent of Washington Bancorp, Washington, Iowa, and thereby indirectly increase its ownership of Federation Bank, Washington, Iowa. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:08/14/2009
|Newspaper:        | Not available
|Federal Register: | 08/14/2009   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location            | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|WEST MI B&TC, FRANKFORT, MICHIGAN | 23045  | 03/30/2009 | 07/16/2009     | S         | Small Bank 

## 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
#### In the Matter of this Application for the Removal of John E. Parker, a Justice of the Peace of the Town of Granby and Police Justice of the Village of Oswego Falls.

Order to show cause granted.
#### The State ex rel. Foley *v.*Vulcan Manufacturing Company et al.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Foley v. Vulcan Mfg. Co.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 59.]

(No. 97-2064

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided December 2, 1998.)

*60
      *Butkovich, Schimpf, Schimpf & Ginocchio Co., L.P.A., James A Whittaker*and *Stephen P. Gast,*for relator.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Julie M. Lynch,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents Industrial Commission and Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

*Per Curiam.*

Relator, C.L. Foley, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio to grant his application for permanent total disability compensation (“PTD”). He insists that the commission impermissibly denied him PTD based on the opinions of two doctors who failed to consider all his allowed conditions before they pronounced him able to work. Upon review of the doctors’ reports, we agree with the commission that neither doctor ignored the two conditions Foley cites, “major depression” and “aggravation of preexisting degenerative arthritis of the low back,” that were allowed in 1990. The doctors instead determined that, as of their examinations in 1992, they could not find symptoms of one or the other condition. Their reports constitute some evidence on which the commission could rely in denying PTD. Accordingly, we cannot disturb the commission’s decision. *State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.*(1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936.

The writ of mandamus is denied.

*Writ denied.*

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., dissents. ■

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent and would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           31103
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             228
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     434234
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         510207
<ALLOWANCE>                                       7520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1034811
<DEPOSITS>                                      846469
<SHORT-TERM>                                     38525
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              14359
<LONG-TERM>                                      20000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         23449
<OTHER-SE>                                       92009
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1034811
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  42928
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                25674
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    65
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 68667
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               31690
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               35309
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            33358
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                8340
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  28213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21921
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       21921
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.91
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.69
<LOANS-NON>                                       4392
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1064
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  1223
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   5475
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  8364
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     1377
<RECOVERIES>                                       533
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 7520
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2651
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           4870
        

</TABLE>
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–85

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 1836, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001

MAY 26 (legislative day, MAY 25), 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and

ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 153]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 153, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference

report to accompany H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and against its consideration. The

rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as

read.

The rule further provides that the yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered on the question of adoption of the conference report

and on any subsequent conference report or motion to dispose of an

amendment between the houses on H.R. 1836. Finally, the rule

provides that Clause 5(b) of rule XXI (requiring a three-fifths vote

on any measure containing a federal income tax rate increase) shall

not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or conference reports

thereon.

Æ
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 February 21, 2009

|Filer                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|TRANS PACIFIC BANCORP | CIC           | Notice by Dorothy Margaret Daly, Oak Brook, Illinois, individually and as executor of the estate of Denis J. Daly, Sr., or trustee of various trusts, to retain 45.6 percent of Trans Pacific Bancorp, Inc., and indirectly its subsidiary, Trans Pacific National Bank, both of San Francisco, California. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/04/2009
|Newspaper:            | Not available
|Federal Register:     | 02/04/2009   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Second Quarter of 2009 (April 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009)

|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
§ 42.15-35 Machinery space openings. ( a ) Machinery space openings in position 1 or 2 shall be properly framed and efficiently enclosed by steel casings of ample strength, and where the casings are not protected by other structures their strength shall be specifically considered. Access openings in such casings shall be fitted with doors complying with the requirements of § 42.15-10(a), the sills of which shall be at least 231 ⁄ 2 inches above the deck if in position 1, and at least 15 inches above the deck if in position 2. Other openings in such casings shall be fitted with equivalent covers, permanently attached in their proper positions.
( b ) Coamings of any fiddley, funnel, or machinery space ventilators in an exposed position on the freeboard or superstructure deck shall be as high above the deck as is reasonable and practicable. Fiddley openings shall be fitted with strong covers of steel or other equivalent material permanently attached in their proper positions and capable of being secured weathertight.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10061, July 12, 1968]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         116,048
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  187,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,000
<INVENTORY>                                    347,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               789,903
<PP&E>                                          64,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 845,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,637,101
<BONDS>                                        789,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,949
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,229,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   845,718
<SALES>                                        452,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,463
<CGS>                                          393,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,737,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,718,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,013
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,719,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,719,581)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Versata Software, Inc. f/k/a Trilogy 

Software, Inc., et al., 

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, 

v. 

Ford Motor Company, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 

 Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with 

 Case No. 15-cv-11264) 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

ORDER FOR STAY OF TAXATION PROCEEDING PENDING APPEAL 

Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Versata Software, Inc. f/k/a Trilogy Software, 

Inc., Versata Development Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc. (“Versata”) jointly prefer to 

postpone the Bill of Costs taxation proceeding until the conclusion of all appellate 

proceedings. 

Based on this request, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

• The taxation proceeding in this matter is stayed pending the conclusion of all 

appellate proceedings; 

• Counsel for both parties will notify this Court after the conclusion of all appellate 

proceedings that costs may now be taxed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 13, 2023 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1127, PageID.96761 Filed 12/13/23 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 December 13, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1127, PageID.96762 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANNY BALTIERRA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-10008

V.

Honorable Denise Page Hood

ORLANS ASSOCIATES PC,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

brought under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 filed October 21, 2015. On October 7, 2015, the

Court entered an Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or to Decline

Supplemental Jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 13) For the reasons set forth below, the Court

denies the motion.

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion

for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. 

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument thereon

shall be allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). 

Defendant’s motion is timely filed. The Local Rule further states:

2:15-cv-10008-DPH-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 11/09/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 174
(3) Grounds. Generally, and without restricting the

court’s discretion, the court will not grant motions for

rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same

issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by

reasonable implication. The movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the

parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion

have been misled but also show that correcting the defect

will result in a different disposition of the case.

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old

arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have

brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.

1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial

consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)).

Defendant in its Motion for Reconsideration raises a new argument not initially

raised in its Motion to Dismiss–that Plaintiff failed to met the statutory requirements

under the Michigan Collection Practices Act. In its initial Motion to Dismiss,

Defendant raised the issue of failure to allege actual damages and, alternatively, for

the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Defendant also submitted an affidavit

to support its Motion for Reconsideration which was not submitted in its initial motion

and is not a proper submission under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where only the pleadings

are considered.

Accordingly,

2

2:15-cv-10008-DPH-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 11/09/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 175
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration under E.D.

Mich. LR 7.1 (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: November 9, 2015

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

November 9, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-10008-DPH-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 11/09/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 176
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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending July 12, 2008

|Filer                              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                                  
|---------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|LONE STAR STATE BANK OF WEST TEXAS | * 18C* Branch  | Lone Star State Bank of West Texas, Lubbock, Texas, to merge with First Bank of Brownfield, Brownfield, Texas, and establish a branch at 2599 74th Street, Lubbock, Texas 79423. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable 
|Newspaper:                         | Not available 
|Federal Register:                  | Not applicable
|POST OAK BANCSHARES, INC.          | 3A1            | Post Oak Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Post Oak Bank, N.A., Houston, Texas.                                     | 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       

* 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