alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AGUS W IDADA, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-71162 Age n c y No. A095-634-567 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Agus W i d a da , a

native an d c itiz e n of Indone sia , pe titions for re v i e w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e d ings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for 

# FIL ED DEC 9 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

buse o f disc re tion the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re o pe n. N

a jmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing W ida d a ’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly

be c a use the m otion wa s file d ne arly four y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s fina l a dm inistra

tive orde r, se e 8 C . F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), and W ida da fa ile d to e sta

b lish a prim a fa c ie c a se for re lie f, se eN ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 986; Halim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 978 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [E] ve n whe re an a

p p lic ant ha s shown m e m

be rship in a disfa vore d group, heor she m

ust still pre se nt som e e vide nc e of individualiz e d risk.” ). W e re

j e c t W ida da ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA re

je c te d e vide nc e “ out of ha nd,” or tha

t the B IA othe rwise a

buse d its disc re tion in deny i ng his motion. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 1 1 6 2 2
----

(2004/C 78 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3543/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Free movement of Bulgarians

Could the Commission please explain what the policy is on freedom of movement for Bulgarian citizens and Bulgarians with refugee status in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

As the Honourable Member knows, Bulgaria will be a Candidate Country until their planned accession in 2007. Until 2007, provided accession takes place that year, Bulgarian nationals will be considered as third country nationals. Bulgarian nationals can enter the Union and move freely within the Schengen area for a period of up to three months.

As regards movement of Bulgarian workers, applications for residence and work permits are subject to the conditions and modalities in each Member State. There is however a provision in the Europe Agreement according to which the existing facilities for access to employment for Bulgarian workers accorded by Member States under bilateral agreements ought to be preserved and if possible improved. As to the establishment of Bulgarian companies and nationals in the territory of a Member State, Bulgarian nationals have a right under the Europe agreement to a treatment no less favourable than that accorded to the Member State's own nationals. The scope of the latter provision has been clarified in European Court of Justice case law.

The Honourable Member may be aware that on 25 November 2003 the Council adopted the Directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents in a Member State (1). In accordance with Chapter III of that Directive, third country nationals (including Bulgarian citizens) who have been legally resident in a Member State for five years or more can benefit under certain conditions from a consolidated status on which basis they can enjoy the right to reside and work in other Member States. This Directive will have to be transposed by Member States into national legislation by November 2005 at the latest.

However, that Directive does not apply to those third country nationals who are refugees. The rights of refugees are set out in the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of which all Member States are signatories. At this stage there is no Community law governing the freedom of movement of refugees in the Union.

----

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003, OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 44.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. GARY BARTONE, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 504 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 2nd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CARBONE’S FINE GOODS AND WINES, 

LLC. 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CARBONE RESTAURANT LLC, 

CARBONE FINE FOOD LLC, THE 

MAJOR FOOD GROUP LLC and MAJOR 

INTELLECTUAL LLC, 

 Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

 NO. 3:22-CV-1184-E 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JONATHAN KELLEY 

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Jonathan Kelley, enters his 

appearance as additional counsel of record in the above-styled and numbered cause on behalf of 

Defendants Carbone Restaurant LLC, Carbone Fine Food LLC, The Major Food Group LLC, 

and Major Intellectual LLC (“Defendants”). Mr. Kelley is admitted to practice in this Court and 

respectfully requests to be added as an attorney of record so that he may receive copies of all 

filings in this matter. 

Jonathan Kelley 

TX State Bar No. 24090202 

jon.kelley@kirkland.com

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

4550 Travis Street 

Dallas, Texas 75205 

Tel: (214) 972-1770 

Fax: (214) 972-1771 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 14 Filed 07/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 669
Dated: July 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jonathan Kelley

 Jeremy Fielding 

Texas Bar No. 17233700 

Jonathan Kelley 

Texas Bar No. 24090202 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

4550 Travis Street 

Dallas, Texas 75205 

Telephone: (214) 972-1770 

Facsimile: (214) 972-1771 

jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com

jon.kelley@kirkland.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 14 Filed 07/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 670
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 22, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Texas, using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to counsel of record.

 

/s/ Jonathan Kelley

Jonathan Kelley

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 14 Filed 07/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 671
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AUL M A SA M ONTER O, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70495 Age n c y No. A099-580-732 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 12, 2014 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. R a ul M a sa M onte ro, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of an orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a p pe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de n ia l of his a pplic ation for c anc e lla

t ion of re m o v a l, a

nd de ny ing his motion to re m and. W e dism iss thepe tition for re vie w. 

# FIL ED JUN 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t M a sa M onte ro fa ile d to de m onstra

te the e xc e ptiona l a

nd e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship ne c e ssa

ry for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . S

e e Vilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C ir. 2012) (orde r) (“ [A] bse nt a c olora ble le ga l or c onstitutiona

l c la im , we la c k jurisdic tion to re v ie w the B IA’ s disc re tiona ry de t e rm i nation tha

t a n a lie n fa ile d to prove that re m ova l would re sult in e xc e ptiona l a n d e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha rdship . . . .” ). W e a lso la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t M a s a M onte ro’ s ne w e vide n c e of ha rdship a c c om

pa ny ing his motion to re m and did not a lte r its unde rly ing ha

rdship de te rm ination. Se e Fe rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ If . . . the B IA de te rm ine s tha t a m otion to re ope n proc e e dings in which the re ha s a lre a dy be e n a n unre vie wa

ble disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nation c onc e rning a sta t utory pre re quisiteto re lie f doe s not m ake out a prim a fa c ie c a se for tha

t re lie f, [8 U.S.C .] § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i) pre c l ude s our visiting the m e rits . . . .” ). M a sa M onte ro’ s c onte ntions tha t the B IA fa ile d to c onside r e ithe r the ha rdship e vide n c e tha

t he pre se nte d

at the he aring or his ne w ha rdship e vide nc e a c c om pa ny ing his motion to re m and a re not c olora

ble que s tions of la

w tha t would invoke our jurisdic tion. Se e Me nde z-C astro v . Muk

ase y , 552 F.3d 975, 978 1 3 - 7 0 4 9 5 2(9th C ir. 2009) (“ To be c olora ble in this c onte xt, . . . thec la im m ust ha ve som e possible va lidity .” (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

1 3 - 7 0 4 9 5 3
Case 3:22-cr-00288-S Document 24 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 107
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6674

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ARTHUR W. PRIVOTT, a/k/a Big Bud, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-98-5; CA-99-73) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 15, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur W. Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arthur W. Privott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion after remand by this court. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional c laims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Privott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Privott’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 193-1 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 4051
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 193-1 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 4052
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 193-1 Filed 03/06/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 4053
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 193-1 Filed 03/06/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4054
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 193-1 Filed 03/06/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 4055
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 193-1 Filed 03/06/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 4056
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29331]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-255-015]


TransColorado Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

November 9, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 2, 2000, TransColorado Gas 
Transmission Company (TransColorado) tendered for filing of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 21, and 
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 22, with an effective date of November 1, 
2000:
    TransColorado states that the filing is being made in compliance 
with the Commission's letter order issued March 20, 1997, in Docket No. 
RP97-255-000.
    TransColorado states that the tendered tariff sheets revised 
TransColorado's tariff to reflect the new negotiated-rate firm 
transportation service contracts with Barrett Resources Corporation and 
Retex, Inc.
    TransColorado stated that a copy of this filing has been served 
upon all parties to this proceeding, TransColorado's customers, the 
Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the New Mexico Public 
Utilities Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations, 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood a. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29331 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69557-69558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29418]


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

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE


Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings through June 2001.

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

    Board Action: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. No. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as 
amended in October, 1999, notice is hereby given that the Federal 
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will meet on Thursday, 
December 7 and Friday, December 8 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in room 6N30, 
441 G St., NW., Washington, DC.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues related to:

--National Defense PP&E;
--Stewardship Reporting;
--Corrections of Errors through Prior Period adjustments;

[[Page 69558]]

--Charter and Operating Procedures for the Accounting and Auditing 
Policy Committee;
--Technical Agenda; and
--Outreach.

    A Steering Committee meeting of the Board's Principal Board members 
will be held in conjunction with the Board meeting. A more detailed 
agenda can be obtained from the FASAB website (www.financenet.gov/fasab.htm after November 30, 2000.
    Following the December meeting, the schedule for the next three 
meetings of the Board is as follows:

--Thursday and Friday, February 22 and 23, 2001;
--Thursday and Friday, April 26 and 27, 2001; and
--Monday and Tuesday, June 18 and 19, 2001.

    The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss issues related to:

--Stewardship Reporting;
--National Defense Property, Plant & Equipment;
--Deletion of Paragraph 65.2--Material Revenue--Related Transaction 
Disclosures;
--Natural Resources;
--Correction of Errors Through Prior Period Adjustments;
--Codification of FASAB Standards;
--Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee issues; and
--Any other topics as needed.

    A Steering Committee meeting of the Board's Principal Board members 
will be held in conjunction with each of the Board meetings. A more 
detailed agenda for each Board meeting can be seen on the FASAB website 
www.financenet.gov/fasab.htm one week prior to each meeting. The 
location of each meeting will be given in the website agenda.
    Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board 
discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO Building security 
requires advance notice of your attendance. For the December meeting, 
please notify FASAB by December 6 of your planned attendance by calling 
202-512-7350, and for the subsequent meetings one day prior to the 
respective meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441 G 
St., NW., Mailstop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463.

    Dated: November 13, 2000.
Wendy M. Comes,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 00-29418 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 

WELLSPRING DISTRIBUTION CORP. 

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION 
 Date:
[●] 
 Grant to: [●] (the “Participant”) 

the right to purchase from Wellspring Distribution Corp. (the “Company”): 

[●] shares of its Non-Voting Class B Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, at a price of $[●] per share. 

The foregoing options are “Options” as such term is defined in the Company’s Amended and Restated 2007 Management Option Plan
(the “Plan”), and are subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Plan in effect from time to time. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as in the Plan. 

[In consideration for the grant of Options under this agreement, Participant hereby agrees that: 

(1) The Options shall not be entitled to any protections or benefits under any change in control protection agreement between
Participant and PFG (or its affiliates) entered into prior to the Amendment Effective Date (including each agreement for Key Executives of PFG) (in each case as modified, amended or supplemented from time to time, a “CIC
Agreement”)). The terms of the Options are governed solely by the Plan and this agreement. 
 (2) The Participant
shall not to be entitled to any benefits or protections under any CIC Agreement arising out of any corporate change in control transactions occurring after the date of this agreement and, in furtherance of the foregoing, all CIC Agreements shall
expire and cease to be of further force and effect on [●]. 
 For the avoidance of doubt, the Participant shall continue to be
entitled to all benefits and protections under any CIC Agreement arising out of the merger transaction with affiliates of Blackstone that occurred in May 2008 (except as provided in clause (1) with respect to the Options). 

To the extent Participant currently enjoys certain benefits or protections pursuant to any such CIC Agreement, this agreement does not change,
reduce, or alter any such benefits or protections to which Participant is entitled in respect of the change in control transaction that occurred on May 24, 2008 (except as otherwise expressly provided in clause (1) above with respect to
Options granted under this agreement).] 
 The Participant expressly acknowledges and agrees to be bound by and subject to the restrictive
covenants in Article IX of the Plan. 
 This agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by means of telecopied
signature pages), all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 
  







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, acting by and through its duly authorized officers, has caused
this agreement to be executed as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	WELLSPRING DISTRIBUTION CORP.
		
	By:	 	  

		 	Name:
		 	Its:


  

	
	Accepted and Agreed:
	
	  

	Name:
Exhibit 10.8


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SIDE AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to the Side Agreement
dated July 20, 2014 (“Letter”) is entered into as of November 26, 2014, by and between P.V. Nanocell Ltd.,
an Israeli company (“Company”), and IP Bank International (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“IPB”).


 


Capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined in this Amendment, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Letter.


 


	 	1.	The term “Offering” in Section 1 to the Letter shall be replaced with the following wording:



 

“The term “Offering”
shall mean a private placement of Ordinary Shares of the Company, which include an investment of a maximum of US $4,000,000, excluding
certain amounts raised by the Company under the Series 2 Convertible Notes, in consideration for Ordinary Shares of the Company
and warrants to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, where the exercise price of the warrants and the purchase price of the
Ordinary Shares sold in the Offering, reflects a pre money valuation of at least US $18,000,000 (the “Pre-Approved Expected
Terms”).”


 


	 	2.	This Amendment shall be effective when executed by the Parties thereto. All the other terms and provisions of the Letter shall remain in full force and effect.


 


	 	3.	This Amendment may be executed in counterparts all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF and intending to
be legally bound hereby, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of November 26, 2014.


 


 


  


	P.V. Nanocell Ltd.	 	IP Bank International (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-04-247-CV

IN RE REDI-MIX L.P.	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:  MCCOY, LIVINGSTON, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 18, 2004