alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005187EN.01001601.xml

| 30.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/16

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/37.784 — Fine Art Auction Houses

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 187/12)

In connection with the draft decision, the following observations can be made on the right to be heard.

| — | The case began when Christie's told the Commission that a cartel existed between itself and Sotheby's. The Commission sent a statement of objections to the two auction houses on 19 April 2002.
  The two parties replied to the objections within the time allowed.
  They were given access to the file. All information was sent on CD-ROM.
  The parties waived their right to defend their case at an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

The case began when Christie's told the Commission that a cartel existed between itself and Sotheby's. The Commission sent a statement of objections to the two auction houses on 19 April 2002.

The two parties replied to the objections within the time allowed.

They were given access to the file. All information was sent on CD-ROM.

The parties waived their right to defend their case at an oral hearing.

| — | In view of the replies sent by the companies, various aspects of their trading policy, deemed to be infringements of Article 81 EC in the statement of objections, are not addressed in the draft Commission decision. I have not found, in the draft of the decision sent to the Commission, any new objections with respect to those stated in the Statement of Objections. |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of the replies sent by the companies, various aspects of their trading policy, deemed to be infringements of Article 81 EC in the statement of objections, are not addressed in the draft Commission decision. I have not found, in the draft of the decision sent to the Commission, any new objections with respect to those stated in the Statement of Objections.

In the light of the above, it can be said that the rights of the defence have been fully respected.

Brussels, 29 October 2002.

Serge DURANDE

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARY PIERCE, 3:15-cv-00325-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

 Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and

Recommendation (#32) on September 6, 2016, in which he recommends

this Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand

this matter for further proceedings. The matter is now before

this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

1 - ORDER 1

Case 3:15-cv-00325-AC Document 34 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 2
561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and

Recommendation (#32). Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the

Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS this matter pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative

proceedings consistent with the Findings and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER 2

Case 3:15-cv-00325-AC Document 34 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Special Topics in Instrumentation and Systems Development.
    Date: September 30, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kee Forbes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-272-
4865, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c171919521a130e1e190f3c121514521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="69020c0c470f061b0b0c1a29070001470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; The Blood-brain Barrier, Neurovascular Systems and CNS 
Therapeutics.
    Date: September 30, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Linda MacArthur, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4187, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
537-9986, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a272b292b383e223f3826220a29393864242322642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8de0eceeecfff9e5f8ffe1e5cdeefeffa3e3e4e5a3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: __August 18, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-18112 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Paramount Group, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Myers Bros. Parking System, Inc., Appellant.

*502Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Western Human Nutrition Research Center: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Laboratories
                        Allen Group
                                    Bennett Group
                                    Stephensen Group
                                    Human Studies
                                    Metabolic Kitchen
                                    Huang Group
                                    Kable Group
                                    Keim Group
                                    Laugero Group
                                    Newman Group
                                    Lemay Group
                                    Support Staff
                    About Us
                        HistorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Western Human Nutrition Research Center People & Locations







Debra  Standridge
                        Western Human Nutrition Research Center

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (530) 752-5270
                        
                        
                        Fax: (530) 752-5271(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually 3:14-CV-01528-PK

and on behalf of all similarly 

situated, ORDER

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA,

INC.; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES

AMERICA, LP; SOLARWORLD

INDUSTRIES SERVICES, LLC;

SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS,

INC., RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS US,

LP, and KELLY SERVICES, INC.,

 Defendants.

BROWN, Senior Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and

Recommendation (#198) on March 7, 2018, in which he recommends

the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion (#164) for Class

Certification. 

1 - ORDER
Solarworld filed timely Objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

The Court has carefully considered Solarworld’s Objections

and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings

and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and

Recommendation (#198). Accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion

(#164) for Class Certification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of May, 2018.

 /s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States Senior District Judge

2 - ORDER
#### BIGELOW, Appellant, v. MARKHAM, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March, 1896.)

Action by William H. Bigelow against De Witt G. Markham.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Mem. by ADAMS, J. Not by direction of ÁDAMS, J.
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0102 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0102

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the position of the European Community in relation to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on wheels for passenger cars and their trailers (COM(2005)0453 - 14451/2005 - C6-0444/2005 - 2005/0181(AVC)) **

*
Official Journal 292 E , 01/12/2006 P. 0092 - 0092 *

P6_TA(2006)0102

Wheels for passenger cars and their trailers ***

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the position of the European Community in relation to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on wheels for passenger cars and their trailers (COM(2005)0453 — 14451/2005 — C6-0444/2005 — 2005/0181(AVC))

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2005)0453 — 14451/2005) [1],

- having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 4(2), second indent, of Council Decision 97/836/EC [2] (C6-0444/2005),

- having regard to Rules 75(1) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0046/2006),

1. Gives its assent to the proposal for a Council decision;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

[2] Council Decision of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions ("Revised 1958 Agreement") (OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78).

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                  USD

   <S>                                                 <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                                              Year
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
   <PERIOD-START>                                      Jan-01-1996
   <PERIOD-END>                                        Dec-31-1996
   <EXCHANGE-RATE>                                               1
   <CASH>                                                9,172,186
   <SECURITIES>                                                  0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                        18,970,041
   <ALLOWANCES>                                          3,564,101
   <INVENTORY>                                          19,057,575
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     50,984,293
   <PP&E>                                                4,081,406
   <DEPRECIATION>                                        1,971,787
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       56,782,154
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 9,427,197
   <BONDS>                                                       0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
   <PREFERRED>                                                   0
   <COMMON>                                             24,890,468
   <OTHER-SE>                                           22,464,489
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         56,782,154
   <SALES>                                             116,569,378
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    100,195,021
   <CGS>                                                79,803,297
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                        16,829,815
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        292,514
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      169,248
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                                       3,854,423
   <INCOME-TAX>                                          1,374,501
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,479,922
   <DISCONTINUED>                                                0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
   <CHANGES>                                                     0
   <NET-INCOME>                                          2,479,922
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0.35
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.35



</TABLE>
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

January 24, 2019

v No. 341836

Genesee Circuit Court

DERRELL ANDRE RICHARDSON, LC No. 17-042113-FH

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and METER, JJ.

CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting).

I would affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the 

evidence obtained during this traffic stop. The trial court concluded that defendant properly 

stopped at the stop sign and I do not believe that this finding is clearly erroneous. MCL 

257.649(8) states:

Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, the driver of a vehicle 

approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop before entering 

the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is not a crosswalk 

shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; or if there is not a crosswalk or a clearly 

marked stop line, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the 

driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway.

It is clear from the dash camera video that defendant stopped his vehicle a bit beyond the stop 

sign. It is also evident from the video that the stop sign is set a distance back from the 

intersection and a driver likely would not have a sufficient view of approaching traffic on the 

intersecting roadway if the driver actually stopped before the stop sign or unmarked “crosswalk.” 

The trial court concluded that defendant did not violate MCL 257.649(8) and as a reviewing 

court we are to accord deference to the lower court’s resolution of factual issues. See People v 

Burrell, 417 Mich 439, 448; 339 NW2d 403 (1983); People v Frohriep, 247 Mich App 692, 702; 

637 NW2d 562 (2001). After review of the record evidence, I am not left with a definite and 
-2-

firm conviction that a mistake has been made in this regard. See People v Roberts, 292 Mich 

App 492, 502; 808 NW2d 290 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, I 

would affirm the trial court’s decision.

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Page 1 of 2

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: crowell@kite.com

Jonathan van Heel, OSB No. 095349

email: jvh@kite.com

CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308

(503) 581-1240

Of attorneys for plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, and

MAXCON PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOE, a/k/a IP 76.115.46.230

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:13-00836-AA

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs herein respond to pending Motion to Dismiss for lack of Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction and asks the Court deny defendant’s motion as moot.

Voltage Pictures, LLC, is the assignee of the rights to the motion picture Maximum 

Conviction, Registration No. PAu 3-647-070, 2012, originally registered by Maxcon 

Productions, Inc. (“Maxcon”). In February of 2013, Maxcon assigned to Voltage Pictures, LLC, 

“all rights and interest in the work” to Voltage Pictures, LLC, to the extent necessary for Voltage 

to enforce copyrights in the work. This assignment, recorded with the Copyright Office, was 

filed by defendant in support of defendant’s motion. Doc. 13-4. This assignment has been 

Case 3:13-cv-00836-AA Document 15 Filed 10/20/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#: 106
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Page 2 of 2

accepted by other courts as the basis for Voltage to be substituted as plaintiff in then pending 

enforcement actions by Maxcon. See eg. 4:13-cv-00038-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., April, 15, 2013). 

However, defendant now claims the assignment at issue is insufficient in light of the 9th 

Circuit’s decision in Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn, 716 F. 3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2013). 

For a number of reasons, plaintiff believes Voltage is the proper party as the specific facts 

relied on in Righthaven do not exist in this case, for one, Voltage being the production company 

that actually released and exploited the work in question as opposed to a mere enforcement shell 

that never exercised rights or exploited the work. 

Maxcon has always intended for such rights to be assigned to Voltage and for Voltage to 

exploit and enforce those rights. As such rather that argue through developing areas of the law, 

Maxcon joined this case as a co-plaintiff, in the First Amended Complaint filed October 20, 

2013, (Doc. 14) mooting the issue. Whomever the courts may determine hold the effective right 

to enforce the copyright at issue, both parties now join in unity to effect enforcement. Even 

should defendant’s argument prevail, defendant will suffer no prejudice as all rights and interests 

related to the dispute are now fully present. The addition of Maxcon does not alter any existing 

claims as the infringement, November 2012, was within the statute of limitations. 17 U.S.C. § 

507(b), (three years).

As such, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny defendant’s motion as moot. 

DATED: October 20, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

CROWELL LAW

/s/Carl D. Crowell

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

Of attorneys for the plaintiffs

Case 3:13-cv-00836-AA Document 15 Filed 10/20/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#: 107