alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th C.nurX cfAppeals D'tr.trict

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

FILE COPY

8/26/2015 COA No. 12-13-00382-CR

JOHNSON, DANIEL WILBUR Tr. Ct. No. 007-1059-13 PD-0452-15

On this day, the Appellant's Pro Se petition for discretionary review has been

refused.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60039

 

FAIRWAY TERMINAL CORPORATION

Petitioner,

versus

JOHNNY J RIGGINS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Respondents.

 

Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Benefit Review Board

(97-0497)

 

December 7, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. Rule 47.6.
JAMES VANCAMP,

Appellant,

v.

DECISION HR 30, INC., 

FWCIGA/FLORIDA 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, 

and USIS,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5853

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Shelley H. Punancy, Judge.

Date of Accident: July 23, 2007.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Micheal A. Edwards of Peterson Bernard, West Palm Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This court’s opinion of August 19, 2015, having been quashed by the Supreme 

Court of Florida by order dated October 27, 2016, the order on appeal is reversed 
2

and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with Westphal v. City of 

St. Petersburg, 194 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2016).

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2015269EN.01000201.xml

| 15.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7687 — NH/HNA/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 269/03)

On 4 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7687. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7687. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Order entered June 6, 2013



## In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01470

- CV

SAM GR IFFIN FAMILY INVESTM ENTS

- I, INC. D/B/A BUMPER TO BUMB ER CAR WASH, Appellant

V.

DALLAS CENTRAL APPRA ISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal fro m the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 10450

- H



### O RDER

On May 14, 2013, The Honorable Jim Jordan, Judge of the 160th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas, signed findings of fact and conclusions of law. We ORDER Gary
Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, to file, WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF

THIS ORDER , a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s May 14, 2013 findings

of fact and conclusions of law.
Appellant shall file its brief thirty days after the supplemental clerk’s record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic
transmission to Gary Fitzsimmons and all counsel of record.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2016210EN.01000202.xml

| 11.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7983 — Danish Crown/SPF-Danmark)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 210/04)

On 7 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7983. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7983. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# CA2014434EN.01001101.xml

| 4.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 434/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 434/11

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

(2014/C 434 A/02)

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 211 | |
| 217 | |
| 219 | |
| 242 | |
| 254 | |
| 255 | |
| 256 | (LV) |
| 258 | (RO) |
| 262 | (EN) |
| 267 | (SL) |
| 270 | (FR) |
| 272 | (DA) |
| 274 | (IT) |
| 277 | |
| 283 | |
| 289 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 293 | (NL) |
| 295 | (MT) |
| 297 | |
| 299 | |
| 304 | |
| 321 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 325 | (SL) |
| 332 | |
| 334 | |
| 340 | |
| 342 | (EN) |
| 352 | |
| 354 | |
| 358 | |
| 366 | |
| 376 | |
| 378 | (SV) |
| 381 | |
| 384 | |
| 385 | (PT) |
| 390 | (HR) |
| 391 | |
| 410 | |
| 412 | |
| 425 | (EN/IT/LT) |
| 427 | |
| 432 | |
| 433 | (DE) |
| 434 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

211

217

219

242

254

255

256

(LV)

258

(RO)

262

(EN)

267

(SL)

270

(FR)

272

(DA)

274

(IT)

277

283

289

(DE/EN/FR)

293

(NL)

295

(MT)

297

299

304

321

(DE/EN/FR)

325

(SL)

332

334

340

342

(EN)

352

354

358

366

376

378

(SV)

381

384

385

(PT)

390

(HR)

391

410

412

425

(EN/IT/LT)

427

432

433

(DE)

434

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27480-27481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Outer Continental Shelf Scientific Committee; Announcement of 
Plenary Session

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Scientific Committee (SC) 
will meet at the Fess Parker's Doubletree Resort.

DATES: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, 
May 23, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and on Thursday, May 24, 
2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard, Santa Barbara, California 
93103, telephone (805) 564-4333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the agenda may be requested 
from BOEM by emailing Ms. Phyllis Clark at Phyllis.Clark@boem.gov. 
Other inquiries concerning the OCS SC meeting should be addressed to 
Dr. Rodney Cluck, Executive Secretary to the OCS SC, Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management, 381 Elden Street, Mail Stop HM-3115, Herndon, 
Virginia 20170-4817, or by calling (703) 787-1087 or via email at 
Rodney.Cluck@boem.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCS SC will provide advice on the 
feasibility, appropriateness, and scientific value of the OCS 
Environmental Studies Program to the Secretary of the Interior through 
the Director of BOEM. The SC will review the relevance of the research 
and data being produced to meet BOEM's scientific information needs for 
decision making and may recommend changes in scope, direction, and 
emphasis.
    The Committee will meet in plenary session on Tuesday, May 22. The 
Chief Environmental Officer will address the Committee on the general 
status of BOEM and its activities. There will be an update from each 
region's Environmental Studies Chief on OCS activities and current 
issues.
    On Wednesday, May 23, the Committee will meet in discipline 
breakout groups (i.e., biology/ecology, physical sciences, and social 
sciences) to review the specific research plans of BOEM's regional 
offices for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.
    On Thursday, May 24, the Committee will meet in plenary session for 
reports of the individual discipline breakout sessions of the previous 
day and to continue with Committee business.

[[Page 27481]]

    The meetings are open to the public. Approximately 30 visitors can 
be accommodated on a first-come-first-served basis at the plenary 
session.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, 5 
U.S.C., Appendix I, and the Office of Management and Budget's 
Circular A-63, Revised.

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
Alan Thornhill,
Chief Environmental Officer, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2012-11277 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1778

JOSEPH E. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
CHARLES R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D. B. BROOKS, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; DAVID J. ROGERS, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA02-3734-8-26-BI)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph E. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Joseph E. Macon appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Macon v. Beddingfield , No. CA-02-3734-8-26-BI (D.S.C. filed June 7, 2004 & entered June 8, 2004). We deny appellees’ motion to 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IMPSAT CORPORATION AND ITS CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          90,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,109
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,099
<PP&E>                                         330,726
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 527,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,910
<BONDS>                                        379,292
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          135,018
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,793
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   527,218
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,089
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,312
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,269)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Sidney Ostro, Plaintiff, *v.*Abraham Safir and Safir Construction Co., Inc., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 18, 1937.

*648
      *Jerome N. Sewards,*for the plaintiff.

*Saul Hammer,*for the defendants.

McLaughlin (Charles B.), J.

It appears from the complaint that the defendants on-July 23, 1937, mailed a postal card to the plaintiff containing the following words: “ Dear-, please send us a check in return for the rubber check you sent us. Safir Iron Work.” The complaint sets forth two causes of action — the first for libel and the second for slander.

On this motion the plaintiff moves to strike out the first, second, third and fourth defenses. As to the first defense there are two lines of attack. The plaintiff argues that the defense is an affirmative denial. It would appear to be so because everything stated therein may be proved under the denials in the answer. However, it is not fatal on a motion of this character. *(Staten Island Midland R. R. Co.*v. *Hinchliffe,*170 N. Y. 473.) The second ground is sufficient to grant the motion to strike out this defense, and the attack must be sustained. Succinctly stated, the defense states that the sending of a post card through the mail is not publication. This court holds that it is a publication as a matter of law. The motion to strike out this defense is granted, without leave to replead. The second and third defenses are attacked because they are affirmative denials. The motion to strike out these defenses is denied. *(Staten Island Midland R. R. Co.*v. *Hinchliffe, supra.)*

The plaintiff claims that the fourth defense is insufficient. It is a defense of truth. The libel consists of the statement that the defendant gave a *“*rubber check.” The denials of the innuendo are carried into the fourth defense (Rules Civ. Frac, rule 90). This defense involves the proposition as to what the ordinary man would consider a “ rubber check ” to be. Would he consider a check good at the time it was delivered but which was presented at a later date after the account had been closed to be a “ rubber check? ” It would appear that a jury will be entitled to say whether the plaintiff, by closing his account while a check was outstanding, was guilty of issuing a “ rubber check.” Such a term is slang, and the precise definition has not been so firmly fixed that this court can take judicial notice or, for that matter, be expected to know its precise meaning as a matter of law. The motion to dismiss the fourth defense is denied. Settle order.
CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Rajesh  Raniga,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  EYI  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

(i) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,  for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2005, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit
32.1 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By:

/s/ Rajesh Raniga
Name:
Rajesh Raniga

Title:
Chief Financial Officer

Date:

November 21, 2005


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

This  certification  accompanies  the Form  10-QSB to which it  relates,  is not
deemed  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  and is not to be
incorporated  by reference  into any filing of the Company under the  Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
Exhibit 10.14


 


201 Spear Street, Suite 1100


San Francisco, CA 94105


 


October 11, 2021


 


Triton Funds LP


San Diego, California


 


	 	Re:	Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement and Warrant


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter amends the Common
Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of February 25, 2021, between Triton Funds LP and RocketFuel Blockchain, Inc. (the “CSPA”)
and the Common Stock Purchase Warrant dated as of February 25, 2021, between Triton Funds LP and RocketFuel Blockchain, Inc. (the “Warrant”),
as follows:


 


1. The definition of “Investment
Amount” in Article I of the CSPA is amended to read as follows:


 


“Investment Amount” shall mean
the Securities in a Purchase Notice multiplied by the greater of $1.00 or eighty percent (80%) of the lowest closing price of the common
stock within fifteen Business Days prior to the Closing; not to exceed $500,000 per Purchase Notice.


 


2. The Warrant is amended to provide
that the number of Warrant Shares shall be increased from 800,000 to 1,300,000. For avoidance of doubt, the parties acknowledge that the
Warrant has previously been exercised with respect to 50,000 shares and that 1,250,000 shares remain available for exercise under the
Warrant.


 


3. The second paragraph of the
Warrant is amended to read as follows:


 


“Capitalized terms
used in this Warrant shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless otherwise defined in the body of this Warrant or in Section
14 below. For purposes of this Warrant, the term “Exercise Price” shall mean with respect to any Exercise Date the greater
of (i) $1.00 per share and (ii) eighty percent (80%) of the average closing price of the Common Stock over the 90-calendar day period
preceding the Exercise Date, subject to adjustment as provided herein (including but not limited to cashless exercise, if permitted under
the terms of this Warrant), and the term “Exercise Period” shall mean the period commencing on Issuance Date and ending on
5:00 p.m. eastern time on the five-year anniversary of such date.”


 


Except as set forth above, all
provisions of the CSPA and the Warrant remain in full force and effect.


 


Please indicate your acceptance
of the foregoing by executing a copy of this letter and returning it to us.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	RocketFuel Blockchain, Inc.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Bennett J. Yankowitz
	 	Bennett J. Yankowitz, CFO


 


	Agreed to and
    accepted:	 
	 	 
	Triton Funds LP	 
	 	 
	 /s/
    Ashkan Mapar 	 
	 Ashkan
    Mapar