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

. ,l 

.=-· ' 

May 15, 2013 

Henkel Corporation 

ATTN: Mr. Louis Fabrizio 

One Henkel Way 

Rocky Hill, CT 06067 

D$8r:Mr. Fabrizio: 

• ' . . • . .. . . • .•. . . · .. .' . . • • . -...l<.~--~ •. ., .. '"' ,. - • "•: 

. ' ., ' -~·. -~~~-..... ,~~~~-~~~>1'-~·-~"""'~lt ·-·-· ·· Tl'farik YOti-fbt~urrrlWiiuny ~,.;pen ~ervrce (l't:'t)}·l;'Jl'tll!TorMay09 '201 J . · · """ -

The processing results are attaclled. 

To ·ensure efficient pn;,~ssihg of yout sl:fbstance(s ); It Is important that these results are 

included with your PMN report for when repottlng to the EPA. 

The cost af the technical processing for your order will be applied to your MasterCard. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide \his service. If you have any questions, please do m::~t hesitate to contaet me. 

Sincerely, 

Jennifer Moore 

CAS Client Services 

Enclosure(s) 

CAS 2540 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 3343 C<llumbus, OH 43210-0334 USA 
INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REllORT 

Registry Number: 103969•85·3 

CA Index Name: 

2·Propenolc acid, 4-phenoxybutyl ester 

.. 

-·· ·:- : . ·- ... 

Please print the above CA lndeK Name on the appropriate page of your PMN. 

CAS 

If this box is checked, CAS has mad~ correctlon(s) marked in rlfd to your IES order. 

Please make the same corrections to your PMN before submittin·g it to the EPA. 

2540 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 3343 COIOmbus, OH 4321 0·0334 USA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,523
<SECURITIES>                                     4,748
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,738
<PP&E>                                          33,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,658
<BONDS>                                          3,000
<COMMON>                                            53
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,732
<SALES>                                         27,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,375
<CGS>                                           22,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                       445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                792
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       792
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         253,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               668,783
<PP&E>                                       2,000,458
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,366,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,834,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,530,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,647
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,180,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,834,141
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               900,899
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  281,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               754,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (147,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (147,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (147,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 228

To approve the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to

the products of Romania.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 13, 1993

Mr. GEPHARDT (for himself and Mr. MICHEL) (both by request) submitted

the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means

JOINT RESOLUTION

To approve the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

with respect to the products of Romania.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress approves the extension of nondiscrim4 inatory treatment with respect to the products of Romania

5 transmitted by the President to the Congress on July 2,

6 1993.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt Shaw, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant did not preserve for our review his contention that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to give a more extensive identification instruction *(see, People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273, 279; *People v Beasley,*114 AD2d 415) and we decline to review that issue in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6]). Finally, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
#### S. B. PARKER, Appellant, v. Willie C. PARKER, Appellee.

No. 11057.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 26, 1941.

H. L. Dillashaw and Joe Burkett, both of San Antonio, for appellant.

Raymond Gerhardt and McClanahan & Loughridge, all of San Antonio, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion. See Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

BRANDON AMMONS, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

STEPHANIE MUSICK d/b/a

FARMERS INSURANCE MUSICK AGENCY

 Defendant.

______________________________________/

CLASS ACTION

Case No. 2:22-cv-121-Z-BR

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Brandon Ammons, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 

does hereby dismiss this action as follows:

1. All claims of the Plaintiff, Brandon Ammons, individually, are hereby dismissed 

with prejudice.

2. All claims of any unnamed member of the alleged class are hereby dismissed 

without prejudice. 

Date: September 16, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

Shamis & Gentile, P.A.

/s/ Andrew J. Shamis

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.

Texas Bar No. 24124558

ashamis@shamisgentile.com

3839 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 155-2319

Dallas, TX 75204

Telephone: 305-479-2299

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 42
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 16, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing 

generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner.

Respectfully submitted,

SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.

3839 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 155-2319

Dallas, TX 75204

Telephone (305) 479-2299

Facsimile (786) 623-0915

 Email: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com

By: /s/ Andrew J. Shamis

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.

 Texas Bar No. 24124558

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 2:22-cv-00121-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 43
Exhibit 13.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350

(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report of Intec
Pharma Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Intec Pharma Ltd.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Intec Pharma Ltd. and will be retained by Intec Pharma Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



April 7, 2017



|By:                           | /s/ Zeev Weiss | 
|----------------------------- | -------------- | 
|Zeev Weiss                    |               
|Chief Executive Officer       |               
|(Principal Executive Officer) |               
|                              |                | 
|By:                           | /s/ Nir Sassi  | 
|Nir Sassi                     |               
|Chief Financial Officer       |               
|(Principal Financial Officer) |
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|U.S. Refinery Isooctane Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|U.S. Refinery Isooctane Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 13,900
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 13,900 | 1,600  | 1,600  | 200    | 200    | 200    | 200    | 200    | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Slip Op. 03 - 68



## UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________ : DREXEL CHEMI CAL COMPANY, : : Plaintiff, :

: v. : Before: MUS GRAVE, JUDGE

: THE UNI TED STATE S, : Court No. 98-02-00295-S : Defend ant. : ____________________________________:

AMENDED JUDGMENT Uponconsideration of

the Consent Motionto Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e)
an d g oo d c au se ha vi ng be en sh ow n, it is he re by; ORDERED that, for

the rea sons set f

orth in the

Consent Motion to Ame

nd the Judg

me nt Pursuant to Rule 59(e), the Consent Motion is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the U

nited State s pay

interest to Drexel as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2644 and 19 U.S.C. § 1505.

_______________________________________ R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, JUDGE Dated: June 27, 2003 New York, New York
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133139 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133139 

 COA: 264179 

Oakland CC: 04-199112-FH 

ROBERT WILLIAM KATTULA-DOWELL,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3039

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll

Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jamal Lewis lllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________ Submitted: October 21, 2020 Filed: October 28, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jamal Lewis, civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 since 2012, appeals the district court’s 1 order revoking his most recent grant of conditional release.

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of theBecause the district court did not clearly err in finding that Lewis failed to comply with

his prescribed regimen of psychiatric care and that his continued release would therefore create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another, see 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f), we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. See United States v. Burleson , 29 F. App’x 412, 413 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (standard of review). We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
#### CRUTCHFIELD v. STATE.

No. 23134.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1945.

*912Tom M. Miller, of Graham, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge. •

Appellant was convicted of the offense af driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record is before us with the statement of facts incorporated in the transcript, which is contrary to Article 760, Sec. 2, C.C.P., which provides as follows:

“The Statement of Facts in felony or misdemeanor cases shall not be copied in The Transcript of the Clerk, but when agreed to by the parties and approved by the Judge, shall be filed in duplicate with the Clerk, and -the original sent up as a part of the record of the cause on appeal; and like procedure shall be followed if the Statement of Facts is prepared by the parties or by the Judge, on the failure of the parties to agree.” Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C. C.P., Vol. 3.

Consequently, we would not be required to consider the statement of facts appearing in the transcript in the present case. However, we have read it and deem the State’s evidence sufficient to justify and sustain the conviction.

Appellant brings forward one hill of exception in which he complains of the action of the trial court in permitting the District Attorney to recall appellant for further cross-examination and on such cross-examination to ask him if he had not been convicted in Wichita County in the year 1939 or 1940 for driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated, to which he objected on the ground that it was too remote and showed an extraneous offense for which he was not being tried. The court overruled the objection and appellant made the following reply to the question:

“I plead guilty to a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in 1939 or 1940; I do not remember, I believe it was in 1939.”

Appellant again objected on the ground that he had not placed his reputation in issue and that this was an attempt to put his reputation in issue. The court overruled the objection and appellant excepted. This testimony was admissible on the issue of appellant’s credibility as a witness. See Brown v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 158 S.W.2d 1018; Gill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 181 S.W.2d 276, and cases cited. In 1939 and 1940, the driving of an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated was a felony under Article 802, P.C., Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 802, and hence the testimony as to appellant’s conviction of that offense at that time was admissible as affecting his credibility as a witness in the present instance.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00052-Z-BR

§

JOSE JIMENEZ-VILLA (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

JOSE JIMENEZ-VILLA (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), 

has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining JOSE JIMENEZ-VILLA (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that JOSE JIMENEZ-VILLA (1) be adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 

202(4), and 557 - ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY AFTER DEPORTATION and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being 

found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: August 24, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00052-Z-BR Document 29 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 59
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

INNOLIGHT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 
  

			
	Number		Shares
		
	[-] 		- [-] Ordinary Shares -

 Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands 

Share capital is US$1,000,000 divided into 1,000,000,000 Ordinary Shares of US$0.001 par value
each 
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [-] is the registered holder of [-] Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Second
Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. 
 EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the [-]th day of [-] 2015 by: 

DIRECTOR