alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015389EN.01003702.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-624/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
No. 10-386.

#### James Dunn, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 650,

178 L. Ed. 2d 480,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9374.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.

Same case below, 41 So. 3d 454.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

 

In our capacities as Presidentand Chief Executive Officer and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofStressgen Biotechnologies Corporation (the “Company”) we hereby certify basedon our respective knowledge that: (a) the enclosed Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b) theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof and for the periods covered in the Quarterly Report.

 

 
|  /s/ Daniel  L. Korpolinski                  |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Daniel  L. Korpolinski                      |
|  President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                                              |
|  /s/  Donald D. Tartre                       |   |
|  Donald  D. Tartre                           |
|  Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 09-1576.

#### James Bannister, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 1061, 131 S. Ct. 638,

178 L. Ed. 2d 476,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9278.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.

Same case below, 236 Ill. 2d 1, 337 Ill. Dec. 685, 923 N.E.2d 244.
Employment Agreement - Daniel P. Donovan



  
 Exhibit 10.41 
  
 July 12, 2004 
  
 Dan Donovan 
  
 Dear Dan: 
  
 This letter confirms your promotion to the position of President of Petroleum Heat and Power Co., Inc. (“Petro”) effective May 5, 2004. We are pleased to offer you the following compensation package and
other terms, the levels and conditions of which will be in effect for three years following the date of this letter, unless otherwise modified by agreement between you and Petro. 
  
 Base Salary: Your base annual salary will be $300,000. You will be paid $12,500.00 semi-monthly, subject to
withholding of all applicable taxes and benefit deductions. 
  
 Annual Bonus: Your annual target performance based bonus will be 35% of your annual salary. 
  
 Long Term Incentive Plan: The Company is in the process of developing a Long Term Incentive Plan that will give certain key members of
senior management a long term wealth creation opportunity that will be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. It is anticipated at this time that awards under the Plan will be in the firm of certain restricted common units and that your
target award is anticipated to be 10,000 units annually over the five years of the program with a potential supplemental grant at the end of five years. Your eligibility to participate in the Long Term Incentive Plan on the anticipated terms
described above is subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors and the terms of the Plan. 
  
 Automobile: You will transition to a monthly car allowance of $1,225.00 upon reaching 60,000 miles on your company car in accordance with
the Petro Car Policy. 
  
 Benefit Coverage: You
will be eligible to participate in the company’s benefits plans in accordance with their terms and conditions. 
  









 Mr. Dan Donovan 
 July 12,
2004 
 Page 2 
  
 Terms: It is understood that your employment is at will and that either party can terminate the relationship at any time. If the company
terminates your employment for reasons other than for cause, or you terminate your employment for good reason, you will be entitled to one years salary as severance. In consideration of this offer you agree that while you are an employee of the
Company and for twelve months thereafter, you will not compete with the Company nor become involved either as an employee, as a consultant or in any other capacity, in the sale of heating oil or propane on a retail basis. You agree that you will not
reveal any confidential information concerning Star Gas Partners L.P. and that you will not solicit nor seek to hire, employees of the Company during that time. 
  

Please indicate your acceptance of this offer by signing and dating this letter below. 
  
 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. 
  

									
	 Sincerely,
	 	 	 	 
			
	 	 	 	 	 
	 Irik P. Sevin
	 	 	 	 Accepted:

	 Chairman
	 	 	 	 
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Dan Donovan

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Dan Donovan
# C_2013359EN.01001402.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/14

---

Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-226/13 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Letter concerning compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal sent to the appellant’s representative in the appeal brought against that judgment - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

2013/C 359/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that order be set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000 pursuant to Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000 pursuant to Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
# C_2015089EN.01002001.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2015 — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls)

(Case T-593/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Winder Controls - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 135a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Request for a hearing made prematurely in the application))

(2015/C 089/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH (Haiger, Germany) (represented by: T. Sommer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1261/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Winder Controls as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2016007EN.01001901.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Menelaus v OHIM — Garcia Mahiques (VIGOR)

(Case T-361/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VIGOR - Earlier Community figurative mark and earlier international figurative mark VIGAR - Admissibility of evidence of use submitted on a CD-ROM - Taking into account of additional evidence which was not submitted within the time-limit set - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))

(2016/C 007/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Menelaus BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Vicente Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre, Spain) and Felipe Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre) (represented by: E. Pérez Crespo, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2013 (Case R 88/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques and, on the other hand, Menelaus BV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Menelaus BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Messrs Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Menelaus BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Messrs Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
No. 10-7361.

#### Ayman Frook, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 809,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9580.

178 L. Ed. 2d 540,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*541Same case below, 616 F.3d 773.
Page 1 of 4

STUDY SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENT

To General Study Plan: 920-30

D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, .gamma.-lactone, monosodium 

salt [CAS RN 6381-77-7]:

Assessment of Ready Biodegradability; CO2 Evolution Test

Study Director: N Best

Test Facility: Harlan Laboratories Ltd.

Shardlow Business Park

Shardlow

Derbyshire

DE72 2GD

UK

Sponsor: Univar USA Inc. 

17425 NE Union Hill Road 

Redmond 

WA 98052 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Study Monitor: Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc.

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 635

Palm Beach Gardens

FL 33410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Harlan Study Number: 41401177

Proposed Schedule:

Experimental Starting Date: 31 May 2014

Experimental Completion Date: 30 June 2014

Draft Report Date: 31 July 2014
Harlan Study Number: 41401177 Study Specific Supplement Page 2

Test Item

Information as provided by the Sponsor.

Identification: D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, .gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt

[CAS RN 6381-77-7]

This study is being performed based on the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

Section 4 Test Rule and the regulations set forth under 40 CFR 799.5087.

Special Conditions

Study specific parameters:

GSP Section 1.1 Guidelines / Regulations: 

The study will be conducted according to the following internationally accepted guidelines and 

recommendations:

•OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1992) No 301B "Ready Biodegradability: CO2

Evolution Test"

•Method C.4-C of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008

•US EPA Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines OCSPP 835.3110 (Paragraph 

(m))

GSP Section 3.2.1 Inoculum:

The study will be conducted using aerobic activated sewage sludge from Loughborough 

sewage treatment works.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Distribution List

The original study specific supplement will be retained in the study file. Copies of the study 

specific supplement and general study plan along with any amendments will be distributed as 

follows:

For the Sponsor: John V. Massingale

Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc.

Quality Assurance: Harlan Laboratories Ltd, Shardlow, UK
Harlan Study Number: 41401177 Study Specific Supplement Page 3
Harlan Study Number: 41401177 Study Specific Supplement Page 4

SIGNATURES

Study Director: N Best

..................................................

Date:

Test Facility

Management: C Mead

..................................................

Date:

For the Sponsor: John V. Massingale

Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc.

.................................................

Date:

Note: These signatures also acknowledge the procedures described in the corresponding General 

Study Plan.
No. 10-473.

#### Robert Grundstein, Petitioner v. Supreme Court of Ohio.

562 U.S. 1065, 131 S. Ct. 666,

178 L. Ed. 2d 483,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9195.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

Same case below, 125 Ohio St. 3d 1455, 928 N.E.2d 454.
p. 1 

### DAIKIN RECEIVED OPP T CBI C CBI C Contro l Numbe r 

# 35526 8 20I3JU L 1 9 A

H 9:3 5 DAIKIN AMERICA, INC. 

# AU

G 

# 2 a ^ 3 90 5 STAT

E DOCK S RD . (35601 ) P.O. BOX

2252 DECATUR , ALABAM A 3560 9 TEL . 256-306-500 0 FA X 256-306-559 9 Scanne d & Processe d i n CI S by : SHARO

N Jul y 18 , 201 3 Attention : TSC

A Declassificatio

n Coordinato

r U.S . EP A Offic e o f Pollution Preventio

n an dToxic s Documen t Control Offic e (7407M

) 120 0 Pennsylvani

aAve. , N W Washington , D

C 2046 0 Dea r Si r o r Madame : Thi s i s t o infor myo u tha t Daikin America, Inc . releas e th e claimo f confidentialit

y regardin g th e attache d document

. Thi s documen

t wa s provide d t o th e EP A i n th e cours e o f th e Fluoropolyme

r incineration ECA , docke

t I D numbe r EPA-HO-OPPT-2003-0071 . Than k yo u fo r you r consideratio

n i n thi s matter. Respectfull

y submitted, Ralp h Werling SHE S Manage r Daiki n America, Inc .ddV O sJeutA|odQK>n u o j xjpuedd y Je

d uogejedej d e)(sodtuoo

•ssiiietuo o ! : 8 I - > # 5 

## S i

i t 

### 8 : «
# Military family comes together for Leap Day reenlistment

/ Published March 1, 2016
COLUMBUS, Ohio,
No. 10-129.

#### In re John E. Carter, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 305,

178 L. Ed. 2d 256,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7672.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AS B I RS I NG H MAN N, P et i t i on er , v. M IC H A E L B . M U K A S E Y , A tt orney G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72883 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 602- 026 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r16, 2010 ** B efo re: T A S H IM A , B E R Z O N , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a s bi rS i ngh M ann, na t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea lfr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . O ur 

# FI LED NO V 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 72883 2 j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence f a c tu a l f in d in g s . I

N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 & n. 1 ( 1992) . W e de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. E ve n i f M ann’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s t i m e l yf i l e d, hi s a s y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al claim s f ail b ec au se su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t M an n c an r e a s o n ab lyr e lo c a te to B o m b ay . See Melkoni an v. A s h c r o ft , 3 2 0 F .3 d1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . S i m i l ar l y , s ubs t ant i a le vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s c onc l us i on tha tM ann f a ile dto e s tab lis h h is e lig ib ilityf o rC A T r e lie f

b e c au s e h e c an s a f

e lyr e lo c a te . See Sin gh v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 5 1 F .3 d4 3 5 , 4 4 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to s tr ik e th e e v id e n c e s ub m itte db yM an n th a t is n o t a lr e a d yc o n ta in e din th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e c o r dis g r an te d . Se e Fis h e rv . I NS , 79 F . 3d95 5, 96 3 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( en banc). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
exv10w11



 







EXHIBIT 10.11




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

QLOGIC CORPORATION

2005 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN




     This First Amendment to the QLogic Corporation 2005 Performance Incentive Plan (the
“Amendment”) is adopted by QLogic Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as
of June 1, 2006 (the “Effective Date”).



RECITALS




     A. The QLogic Corporation 2005 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) was adopted by the
Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) on June 9, 2005 and approved by the stockholders of
the Company on August 23, 2005.



     B. Appendix A of the Plan sets forth the material terms of the automatic award grants to
non-employee directors.



     C. The Company completed a 2-for-1 stock split on March 2, 2006 (the “Stock Split”).



     D. The Board desires to amend the Plan to: (i) adjust the initial option grant to new
non-employee directors to 50,000 shares of Common Stock, (ii) adjust the annual option grant to
non-employee directors to 25,000 shares of Common Stock, (iii) adjust the annual option grant to
any non-employee director that serves as Chairman of the Board to 75,000 shares of Common Stock,
and (iv) provide that future stock dividends or stock splits will not automatically increase the
shares of Common Stock to be granted pursuant to automatic option grants to non-employee directors
pursuant to Appendix A of the Plan.



AMENDMENT




     1. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition shall have the respective
meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.



     2. Effective as of the Effective Date, Section A.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in the
following manner:




     (a) The number “80,000” in sub-paragraph (a) of Section A.2 (adjusted for the Stock Split) is
hereby revised to read “50,000”.




     (b) Each occurrence of the numbers “40,000” and “108,000” in sub-paragraph (b) of
Section A.2 (each adjusted for the Stock Split) are hereby revised to read “25,000” and
“75,000,” respectively.



1









 





     3. Effective as of the Effective Date, Section A.6 of the Plan is hereby amended such that the
following sentence is added immediately after the opening sentence:



     “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Appendix A or the Plan, in the event
of a stock dividend or stock split, the shares of Common Stock set forth in Section A.2 of this
Appendix A to be granted pursuant to automatic option grants to non-employee directors
shall not be automatically increased following such event.”



     4. Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. All awards
granted prior to the Effective Date shall be governed by the Plan as in effect prior to the
Effective Date.



     Adopted by the Board of Directors on the 1st day of June 2006.




2
No. 10-5882.

#### Javier Robles, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 955, 131 S. Ct. 355,

178 L. Ed. 2d 255,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7800.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 604 F.3d 673.