alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
                    (Modification of terms and rents)

The purpose of this Amendment, dated January 21, 1997, is to modify 
the terms of the Lease as noted, between 2545 Central Avenue 
Partnership, "LESSOR," and Somatogen, Inc., "LESSEE," for The Premises 
located at 2590 Central Avenue, Boulder, CO.

This Amendment modifies the term of the Lease Agreement, dated 
February, 14, 1995, as referenced in Paragraph 2 and all other written 
Agreements, and provides for the rent schedule Paragraph 31 and terms 
to be modified. 

The Lessor hereby leases the Premises to the Lessee, and the Lessee 
hereby leases the Premises from the Lessor, for a term commencing at 
12:01 A.M. on the 1st day of November, 1997 and ending at 11:59 P.M. 
on the 31st day of October, 2001, unless sooner terminated as herein 
set forth.  The Lessee agrees to pay Lessor as rent for the premises 
according to the terms of the RENT SCHEDULE  below:

November 1, 1997 through October 31, 1998  $18,894.00 per month
November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999  $19,649.00 per month
November 1, 1999 through October 31, 2000  $20,435.00 per month
November 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001  $21,253.00 per month

Lessee agrees, at the request of the Lessor, to remove all equipment 
and improvements Lessee has made or added to the Premises.  
Additionally, Lessee agrees to make all the necessary repairs to the 
Premises in connection with the removal of equipment and improvements, 
in a workmanlike manner.

All other terms and conditions of the original Lease, all Amendments 
and all other written agreements are to remain in full force and 
effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and 
seals this date and year above written.

                   LESSOR:   2545 Central Avenue Partnership
                   BY:       /s/ Larry F. Frey 
                             -------------------------------
                   LESSEE:   Somatogen, Inc.
                   BY:       /s/   Timothy D. Hoogheem
                             -------------------------------
                   ITS:      Senior Vice President of Finance,
                             and Administration, CFO and Treasurer
No. 11-11154.

#### Colo’n *v.*Downs.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Federal Work-Study Program

- Biden-Harris Administration Calls on Colleges, Universities, and Schools to Partner in Addressing K-12 Learning Loss, Announces Initial Cohort of Committed Partners Today, the U.S.
No. 11-10741.

#### Gomez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      18,482,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,062,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,810,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,279,000
<PP&E>                                       5,267,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,661,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,928,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,862,000
<BONDS>                                        991,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,030,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,887,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,928,000
<SALES>                                     16,519,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,519,000
<CGS>                                       10,906,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,045,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,316,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             339,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,087,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,087,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  12,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,075,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        

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

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          22,916
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,830    
<INVENTORY>                                    444,355      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               816,753      
<PP&E>                                         778,690      
<DEPRECIATION>                                 316,806      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,403,328        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,190      
<BONDS>                                        325,000      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           498
<OTHER-SE>                                     615,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,403,328
<SALES>                                      1,288,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,288,886        
<CGS>                                          863,160      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,166,865      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,419
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,082
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             66,123
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32   
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10022.

#### West *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie Lee BUTTS, a/k/a Stephanie Zavala, a/k/a Tater, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7534

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 16, 2018

Stephanie Lee Butts, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas Cam-illetti, Anna Zartler Krasinski, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lara- Kay Omps-Botteicher, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, Traci Michelle Cook, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarks-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee,

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephanie Lee Butts seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of' the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Butts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *316materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
# C_2022359EN.01008502.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/85

---

Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-455/22)

(2022/C 359/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

| — | for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement with nr. 80212 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:






  — | EUR 652 218,70, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 559 287,10, interest of EUR 38 925,60 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 54 006,00. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement with nr. 80212 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:

—

EUR 652 218,70, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 559 287,10, interest of EUR 38 925,60 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 54 006,00.

| — | further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made. |
| --- | --- |

—

further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.

| — | for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.

---
#### Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16363

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Josh Thomas, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Josh Thomas, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his parole proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Thomas consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and *659dismissed Thomas’s action before the named defendants had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because all parties, including un-served defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction To vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael E. Broll, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                        /s/ Michael E. Broll
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael E. Broll
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        November 15, 2004
Page **1** of **1**



# BMD Analysis **(Pooled Data , Cmax**  **)**

Kan Shao September 6 , 2013

Dose N E ffect

0 48 22 11.9 20 5 24.5 19 8 49.57 25 5 202.4 22 11 641.1 23 14 2049.6 22 18



### BMD Estimation Results

Model P

- Value AIC BMD (BMR=10%) BMDL

(BMR=10%) BMD

(BMR=5%) BMDL

(BMR=5%) Gamma 0.125 235.31 180.45 102.61 91.49 49.95 Logistic 0.179 233.77 244.03 169.56 123.48 85.78 LogLogistic 0.140 235 174.78 **57.27** 98.26 

## 27.13 LogProbit 0.203 233.329 277.44 169.82 192.93 118.09 Multistage **0.205 233.327**  162.95 102.49 79.33 49.90 Probit 0.175 233.84 251.66 181.67 127.01 91.67 Weibull 0.125 235.33 168.05 102.5 82.63 49.90 Quantal

- Linear **0.205 233.327**  162.95 102.49 79.33 49.90 Note: Multistage model and Quantal

- Linear model have the lowest AIC. But the BMDLs exceed 3

- fold range, so the BMDL from the Loglogistic model should be selected.

The best fitted model Quantal

- linear is shown below.Page **2** of **2** 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0 500 1000 1500 2000FractionAffected

dose Quantal Linear Model, with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL

14:52 09/06 2013 BMDL BMD Quantal Linear

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0 500 1000 1500 2000FractionAffected

dose Log-Logistic Model, with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL

15:13 09/06 2013

BMDL BMD Log-Logistic
No. 11-11107.

#### Brown *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022148EN.01004501.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/45

---

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-96/22)

(2022/C 148/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex I to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex I to that regulation;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

# **Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter63**

**ofTitle 18 of the United States Code**

 

I, William M. Lasky,President and Chief Executive Officer of Accuride Corporation, certify that tomy knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for said period fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Accuride Corporation.

 
| /s/ WILLIAM M. LASKY                   |   | Dated: | August 7, 2009 |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------|
| William M. Lasky                       |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

 

I, James H. Woodward, Jr.,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Accuride Corporation,certify that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii) the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor said period fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Accuride Corporation.

 
| /s/ JAMES H.  WOODWARD, Jr.                   |   | Dated: | August 7, 2009 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------|
| James H.  Woodward, Jr.                       |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
No. 11-11134.

#### Guy *v.*Wilson, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Annual Report of Raven Industries, Inc. (the "company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2003, the undersigned, Ronald M.
Moquist and Thomas Iacarella, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (1) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained
in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the company.

April 23, 2003                            /S/ Ronald M. Moquist
--------------------                      ----------------------------
       Date                               Ronald M. Moquist
                                          President (Principal Executive
                                          Officer and Director)

April 23, 2003                            /S/ Thomas Iacarella
--------------------                      -----------------------------
       Date                               Thomas Iacarella
                                          Vice President and Chief Financial
                                          Officer (Principal Financial and
                                          Accounting Officer)
#### YUCHA, H. v. PENNDOT

1917 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/12/2017

Northumberland County Civil Division, CV-16-1618

Affirmed
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

l1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

138485(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138485 COA: 289235 St. Clair CC: 08-000726-FH RICHARD JAMES MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.