alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                            $844
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,891
<PP&E>                                          74,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,723)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,369
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,950)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,889
<SALES>                                          5,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,020
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,714)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,489)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.47)


</TABLE>
NaturalNano, Inc.

15 Schoen Place

Pittsford, NY 14534


 


                                                January 8 , 2014


 


Alpha Capital


C/o LH Financial 150 Central

 Park South

2nd Floor


New York, NY 10019


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter shall serve as the agreement
and promise of NaturalNano, Inc. (the "Company") to pay to the order of Alpha Capital. ("Alpha"), the sum of
$3000.00 plus interest at 8% per annum. The Company acknowledges that Alpha has advanced $3000.00 in funds at the Company's request,
and the Company's obligations hereunder shall be secured by all other collateral that secures the various senior secured promissory
notes that the Company has previously issued to Longview. In the event the Company fails to repay Alpha in accordance with the
terms of this letter, Alpha should be entitled to exercise all rights granted to it as a secured creditor pursuant to the Security
Agreements (as defined in the 8% Senior Secured Promissory Note issued to Longview by the Company on or about November 5, 2008).


 


All payments under or pursuant to this Note
shall be made in United States Dollars, in immediately available funds, to Longview at the address set forth above or at such other
place as Longview may designate from time to time in writing to the Company or by wire transfer of funds to Longview's account,
as requested by Longview. The outstanding principal balance of this Note, together with all accrued and unpaid interest, shall
be due and payable in full on June 30, 2014.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Natural Nano, Inc.
	 	 
	 	/s/ James Wemett
	 	 
	 	Name: James Wemett
	 	Title: CEO
# C_2023083EN.01003101.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/31

---

Order of the General Court of 17 January 2023 — GKP v EUIPO — Cristalfarma (TIARA RUBIS)

(Case T-518/22) (1)

(2023/C 83/40)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.

---
# C_2023054EN.01001502.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/15

---

Action brought on 15 December 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-762/22)

(2023/C 54/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot and I. Rubene, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 106 of Directive 2013/59/Euratom, Member States were required to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 6 February 2018. The Member States were also required to inform the Commission of the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by that directive.

Since the Republic of Latvia has not adopted or, in any event, has not communicated to the Commission all the transposing measures necessary to comply with the directive, the Commission decided on 29 September to bring an action before the Court in order to obtain a declaration, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, that the Republic of Latvia has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.

---
# C_2022237EN.01004001.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/40

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 8 April 2022 — Z.K. and M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-248/22)

(2022/C 237/51)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Z.K. and M.S.

Respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality

Question referred:

Does Council Directive 2004/38/EC (1) prohibit the simultaneous conferral of derived rights of residence on the estranged spouse and the de facto, durable partner of a European Union citizen lawfully exercising his right of free movement as a worker under the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

---
<TABLE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 11.1

                 STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                 (UNAUDITED)
                (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)



                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                           March 31,
                                                        1999      1998
                                                        -----     -----
   <S>                                                  <C>       <C>
   Basic and diluted:

     Weighted average shares outstanding - basic        9,492     9,488 
     Assumed exercise of Series A and B stock
      options (Treasury stock method)                      --         -- 
                                                        -----     -----
   Total common share equivalents - diluted             9,492     9,488 
                                                        =====     =====
   Net income (loss)                                   $   43    $ (416)
                                                        =====     =====
   Per share amounts  -- Basic and fully diluted:

   Net income (loss) - basic                           $0.005    $(0.04)
                                                        =====     =====
   Net income (loss) - diluted                         $0.005    $(0.04)
                                                        =====     =====

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
   
  We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Edge Petroleum
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, on Amendment No. 4 to Form S-1 of our
report dated February 4, 1997, relating to the supplementally combined
financial statements of Edge Petroleum Corporation, a Texas corporation, and
our report dated December 3, 1996, relating to the balance sheet of Edge
Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation, appearing in the Prospectus,
which is part of this Registration Statement.     
 
  We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Prospectus.
 
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
   
February 21, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10277-10278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5494]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


Notice of Health Care Policy and Research; Special Emphasis Panel 
Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2) announcement is made of the following 
special emphasis panel scheduled to meet during the month of March 
1997:

    Name: Health Care Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date and Time: March 28, 1997, 1:00 p.m.
    Place: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 2101 E. 
Jefferson Street, Suite 400, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Open Mach 28, 1:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.
    Closed for remainder of meeting.
    Purpose: This Panel is charged with conducting the initial 
review of grant applications submitted in response to the National 
Research Service Award Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships Program. 
The postdoctoral research fellowships provide opportunities for 1 or 
more years of academic training and supervised experience in 
applying quantitative research methods to the systematic analysis 
and evaluation of health services.
    Agenda: The open session of the meeting on March 28, from 1:00 
p.m. to 1:15 p.m., will be devoted to a business meeting covering 
administrative matters. During the closed session, the committee 
will be reviewing and discussing grant applications dealing with 
health services research issues. In accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 
U.S.C., 552b(c)(6), the Acting Administrator, AHCPR, has made a 
formal determination that this latter session will be closed because 
the discussions are likely to reveal personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the grant applications. This information 
is exempt from mandatory disclosure.
    Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members or other relevant 
information should contact Carmen M. Johnson, Agency for Health Care 
Policy and Research, Suite 400, 2101 East Jefferson Street, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone (301) 594-1449 x1613.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.


[[Page 10278]]


    Dated: February 26, 1997.
Lisa Simpson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-5494 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
Reference 

Standard (1) # Pass # Fail

Protocol Gas 

Failure Rate 

(2) # Pass # Fail

Protocol Gas 

Failure Rate 

(2) # Pass # Fail

Protocol Gas 

Failure Rate 

(2)

SRM 2 4 67% 4 0 0% 2 1 33%

NTRM 11 3 21% 14 0 0% 17 1 6%

GMIS 20 2 9% 23 1 4% 20 1 5%

Tri-Blend NO/SO2/CO2 Protocol Gases - Certified According to EPA Traceability Protocol

EPA Protocol Gas Audit Failure Rates for

EPA Cylinder Gas Assays: April 2003 - February 2004

(2) Failure rate refers to the number of tri-blend Protocol gases that failed the audit. Failure rate differs depending on what type 

of reference standard was used to develop each gaseous component of the tri-blend Protocol mixture. This table does not 

necessarily mean that the reference standard used to develop Protocol tri-blend mixtures is the principal cause of inaccuracies 

in the mixture concentrations. Operator error or improper use of analytical methods may significantly contribute to inaccuracies 

of Protocol tri-blend tag value concentrations.

(1) Reference Standard refers to the type of standard gas used by gas vendors to develop tri-blend Protocol gas mixtures. 

NO SO2 CO2
# C_2022191EN.01002502.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/25

---

Action brought on 22 March 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-214/22)

(2022/C 191/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, A. Azéma, I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 4 October 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 8(7), Article 9 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 4 October 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 8(7), Article 9 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;

| — | impose on Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 7 096,50 per day from the date of delivery of the judgement in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Article 8(7), Article 9 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/42; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 7 096,50 per day from the date of delivery of the judgement in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Article 8(7), Article 9 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/42;

| — | order Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union allows Member States to recover more easily the benefits attained by criminals as a result of serious organised crime. Member States were obliged to transpose the directive by 4 October 2016. The Commission opened the infringement procedure against Luxembourg in November 2016 and then sent it a reasoned opinion in March 2019. To date, Luxembourg has not notified the Commission of complete transposition of the directive into its national law.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LINDA DAVANZO and ANDREW DAVANZO,

Appellants,

v.

BANKUNITED, N.A,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3521

[November 27, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cymonie S. Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CA013646.

Linda Davanzo and Andrew Davanzo, Boca Raton, pro se.

Christopher J. Hoertz and Gary M. Singer of Law Firm of Gary M. 

Singer, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY, J., and PHILLIPS, CAROL-LISA, Associate Judge, concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V., Appellant v. WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, DBA WAC Lighting Co., Appellee

2017-1529

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 7, 2018

*1009Arianna Evers, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Robert Manhas; Mark Christopher Fleming, Cynthia D. Vreeland, Boston, MA.

Tigran Vardanian, Radulescu LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by Etai Lahav, David C. Radulescu, Michael D. Sadowitz.

(Moore, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
No. 11-10041.

#### Thomas et ux. *v.*Loveless et al.

Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00466
- CV

Robert Joseph Yezak, Appellant

v. Jeana A. Riley, Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY NO. CV40,354, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Robert Joseph Yezak filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Sept ember 1 , 2020 order denying appellant’s request for a temporary restraining order. Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Yezak a lett er informing h im that th is Court appears to lack jurisdiction o ve r the appeal because our jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment , or in the case of an interlocutory order, there is a statute that provides fo r an interlocutory appeal

. A n order denying a request for temporary restraining
order is neither

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that appeal generally may only be taken from final j udgment that disposes of a ll pending parties and claims in record unless statute provides f or interlocutory appeal); Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352

- 53 (Tex. 1998) ( “Appellate courts2

have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocut ory ord ers only if a statute expl icitly

prov ides appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Pra c. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutor y orders but not permitting appeal from grant or denial
of temporary restrainin g order ). The Clerk request ed a response on or before December 10, 2020, informing th is Court of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. To date , no respon se has been
filed. Accordingly, f or the reasons explained abo ve, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdi ction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________ Gis ela D. Triana, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: December 30, 2020
Submitted October 27;

portions of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed, otherwise affirmed December 7, 2016;

petition for review denied April 27, 2017 (361 Or 439)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*KYLE D. DAGGETT, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Wallowa County Circuit Court

14032327; A157923

385 P3d 1281

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*716PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of felony violation of a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(b), raising two assignments of error. We reject his first assignment of error without discussion. In his second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in imposing, in the judgment, a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” on each count. Defendant asserts that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose those assessments. The state concedes that the trial court lacked authority to impose the $60 assessments and that those portions of the judgment should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. *See State v. Nutt,*274 Or App 217, 220-21, 360 P3d 636 (2015), *rev den,*358 Or 551 (2016) (discussing trial court’s lack of authority to impose $60 “Mandatory State Amt” and reversing portion of judgment requiring the defendant to pay that assessment).

Portions of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed; otherwise affirmed.
No. 11-10645.

#### Gardner *v.*Romanowski, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### MCKEITHAN, D. v. CLARK, M., et al.

133 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/02/2017

Erie County Civil Division, 10027-17

Dismissed