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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re WELLBUTRIN SR

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

ALL END-PAYOR CLASS ACTIONS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 04-cv-5898

Judge Lawrence F. Stengel

CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE AWARDS 

TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

Third-Party Payor Plaintiffs, Government Employees Health Association, Inc., IBEW –

NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan, A.F. of L. – A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, 

United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund 

and Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, Inc. (collectively, “Class Plaintiffs”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel (“Class Counsel”), respectfully move this Court for an order 

(i) awarding attorneys’ fees of $7.095 million (plus accrued interest), which amounts to 33% of 

the overall settlement amount of $21.5 million; (ii) reimbursing Plaintiffs’ Counsel for the costs 

and expenses of the litigation in the amount of $1,287,028.81; and (iii) approving incentive 

awards in the aggregate amount of $50,000.00 (i.e., $10,000.00 each) to the five Class Plaintiffs.

In support of this Motion, Class Counsel submit the accompanying Memorandum in 

Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of 

Expenses, and Payment of Incentive Awards to the Class Representatives, and the Joint 

Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Payment of Incentive Awards to the Class 

Case 2:04-cv-05898-LS Document 373 Filed 04/12/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Representatives, with Exhibits A and B. To date, there have been no objections to the relief 

requested herein. The Court has scheduled a hearing on final approval for June 27, 2013 (D.I.

367). Defendant has advised that it takes no position on this motion.

WHEREFORE, Class Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for the entry of an Order 

substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A to Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of 

Proposed TTP Class Settlement submitted concurrently herewith.

Dated: April 12, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph H. Meltzer /s/ Thomas M. Sobol

Joseph H. Meltzer Thomas M. Sobol

Terence S. Ziegler David S. Nalven

KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER Ed Notargiacomo

& CHECK, LLP HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

280 King of Prussia Road 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301

Radnor, PA 19087 Cambridge, MA 02142

Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Telephone: (617) 482-3700

Proposed Class Counsel for the Proposed Class of Third Party Payors

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day filed and served through the Court’s ECF system a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing.

/s/ Joseph H. Meltzer

Case 2:04-cv-05898-LS Document 373 Filed 04/12/13 Page 2 of 2
No. 56968.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 172384-K and 173076-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Protest 172384-K having been abandoned as to entry A-1149 was dismissed insofar as it relates to said entry.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-3143 

MARIA E. URIEL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

 John D. Gates, of El Paso, Texas, agrued for petitioner. 

Matthew H. Solomson, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

respondent. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, 

Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. 

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2007-3143 

MARIA E. URIEL, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

 Respondent. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Merit Systems Protection Board 

in CASE NO(S). DA0843060555-I-1 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (LINN, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED December 10, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Working hard for Kansans (Annual)
2002, 2003,2005

 
SuDoc:�� � A 57.81/16:��������� 
�Item Number: 0120-C-16 (online)
CGP system Number: 000561062
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

AFS-10-327-P

September 29, 2014

Mr. Jim Bilbrey

Adventure Flights Inc.

19301 Jasmine Court 

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

Dear Mr. Bilbrey:

This is in response to your letter dated July 6, 2010, posted to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2010-0714) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to amend §§ 141.5(d) and (e) of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

In your petition, you request that the requirements for a pilot school certificate be 

amended to address Lighter-Than-Air Schools.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, we will place your comments and arguments 

for the proposed rule change in your petition in a database, which we will review when 

we consider future rulemaking. 

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find 

out and track it through one of the two following websites:
2

• For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website: http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings. 

• For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website: (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director, Office of Rulemaking
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 600398

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JESUS E. OLMEDO Private First Class (E

- 2 ), U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_______________________ __ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry, US M C

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendl eton , C A

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel Todd J. Enge, USMC. For Appellant : Major Lee C. Kindlon, USMCR

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 24 January 2017

_________________________ Before M ARKS , G LASER

- A LLEN , and J ONES , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
##### 



WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-QSB
Quarter ended June 30, 2006
 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
  §
    
    This Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and§
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of
and for the periods presented.
 /s/ Cynthia A. MahlCynthia A. MahlSenior Vice President/Chief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2006
 Page 44
# C_2018005EN.01003701.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — HL v Commission

(Case T-668/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2014 promotion exercise - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the appellant’s name - Obligation to state reasons - No error of law - No distortion of the evidence - Application for the recusal of a judge))

(2018/C 005/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: initially by G. Berscheid, C. Berardis-Kayser and A.-A. Gilly, and subsequently by Berscheid, G. Gattinara and Berardis-Kayser, Agents,)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016, HL v Commission (F-112/15, EU:F:2016:161), and seeking to have that judgment set aside

HL

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders HL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

1

---
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 41 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 41 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 41 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 41 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 41 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 5 of 5
# C_2017030EN.01004801.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX)

(Case T-58/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark APAX - Earlier international word mark APAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 030/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Apax Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner and J. Curry, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and I. Moisescu, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Moyou Joly, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 1441/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Apax Partners Midmarket and Apax Partners.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders APAX Partners LLP to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by APAX Partners Midmarket, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders APAX Partners LLP to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by APAX Partners Midmarket, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0181 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SANDRA LYNNE JONES,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 30 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 22 2024

07/22/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0181
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re Petition of FRESCATI SHIPPING 

COMPANY, LTD., as the Owner of the M/T 

ATHOS I, and TSAKOS SHIPPING &

TRADING, S.A., as Manager of the M/T 

ATHOS I, for Exoneration from or Limitation 

of Liability 

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 05-cv-305 (JHS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY, 

et al., 

Defendants.

CONSOLIDATED 

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 08-cv-2898 (JHS)

FINAL ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of August 2016, in accordance with the Opinion of the Court 

issued on July 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 872), the Court’s Preliminary Order dated July 25, 2016 (Doc. 

No. 874), and the letter of counsel dated August 17, 2016 regarding the agreed upon amount of 

prejudgment interest (Doc. No. 885), it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd. and Tsakos

Shipping & Trading, S.A. (collectively, “Frescati”) and against CITGO Asphalt 

Refining Company, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, and CITGO East Coast Oil 

Corporation, jointly and severally, on the claims of breach of the contractual safe 

berth warranty and negligence in the total amount of $55,497,375.95, plus 

Case 2:05-cv-00305-JHS Document 888 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 2
2

prejudgment interest in the amount of $16,010,773.75, for a total judgment of 

$71,508,149.70.

2. On the Government’s subrogation claim for breach of the contractual safe berth 

warranty in which the Government seeks reimbursement by CITGO Asphalt 

Refining Company, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, and CITGO East Coast Oil 

Corporation for the funds paid from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to Frescati, 

Judgment is entered in favor of the Government and against CITGO Asphalt 

Refining Company, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, and CITGO East Coast Oil 

Corporation, jointly and severally, in the amount of $43,994,578.66, plus 

prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,620,159.98, for a total judgment of 

$48,614,738.64.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky

JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00305-JHS Document 888 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

Department of the Environment 

Amendments to COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.09.01 

Relating to the Definition of Fuel Burning Equipment

Purpose of Amendment 

The primary purpose of this amendment is to remove the word "furnace" from the definition of 

fuel burning equipment in COMAR 26.11.01.01B(17). The amended definition will be more 

consistent with the federal definition as it is used in more recent federal requirements. This 

amendment also removes the redundant definition of “fuel burning equipment” from COMAR 

26.11.09.01. 

Background

The term "fuel burning equipment" was defined several years ago in order to differentiate 

between a boiler that involves the indirect heating of air or water and fuel burning installations 

that involve direct heat exchange. Fuel burning installations, such as a kiln, are subject to the 

general requirements for SO2 and particulate matter whereas fuel burning equipment is subject to 

different standards in the form of pounds of SO2 per million Btu per hour heat input or the sulfur 

content of the fuel. 

Requirements for fuel burning equipment include a curve that provides allowable particulate 

matter emissions per million Btu heat input. Fuel burning installations and other installations are 

subject to a general concentration type standard such as a 0.03 grain loading standard. As 

another example, a cement kiln is a fuel burning installation subject to an SO2 concentration 

requirement. The sulfur in fuel requirements that apply to fuel burning equipment do not apply 

to a cement kiln. 

Sources Affected 

Since a "furnace" is usually direct heat exchange, it should not be included in the definition of 

fuel burning equipment. There are few examples of indirect heat exchange furnaces. In search 

of any affected facility, the Department has found only one indirect heat exchange furnace in the 

State. That furnace, however, has been subject to the general requirements as a fuel burning 

installation and not subject to "boiler" requirements. Therefore, to the Department's knowledge 

there are no sources affected by this amendment. 

Expected Emissions Reductions 

Since there are no sources affected by this amendment there is no expected emission reductions. 

Economic Impact

Since there are no sources affected by this amendment, there is no economic impact on sources 

or the Department. The amendment will only clarify the requirements that apply to fuel burning 

equipment. 

Revision to Maryland's SIP 

This amendment will be submitted to the EPA to be included in the approved SIP. 

1800 Washington Boulevard | Baltimore, MD 21230-1718 | www.mde.state.md.us

410-537-3000 | 800-633-6101 | TTY Users: 800-735-2258
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the “Act”), each ofthe undersigned officers of INTAC International, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the “Company”), does hereby certify that:

 

The AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the “PeriodicReport”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)) andinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ J. David Darnell                             |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | J. David Darnell                                 |
|   | Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer |

 

 

Dated:  March 31, 2003

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act andis not being filed as part of the Periodic Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,204
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,616
<INVENTORY>                                     29,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,586
<PP&E>                                          40,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,162
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                        45,625
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,620
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,680
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,520)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    508
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,028)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>