alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6840.

#### Lamont Dante Sneed, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 581,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8711.

178 L. Ed. 2d 424,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 551.
No. 10-7936.

#### Andrew Xavier Seay, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1191, 131 S. Ct. 1027,

178 L. Ed. 2d 849,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 613.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 620 F.3d 919.
No. 10-818.

#### Richard E. Walbaum, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

562 U.S. 1201, 131 S. Ct. 1056,

178 L. Ed. 2d 867,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1046.

January 24, 2011.

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

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 668.
No. 10-7431.

#### Glynis Bethel, Petitioner v. City of Bay Minette, Alabama.

562 U.S. 1183, 131 S. Ct. 1004,

178 L. Ed. 2d 836,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 791.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 77 So. 3d 626.
No. 09-7433.

#### Gregory A. Garton, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1078, 131 S. Ct. 633,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9299.

178 L. Ed. 2d 508,

November 29, 2010.

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

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

Same case below, 336 Fed. Appx. 804.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will 
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 29, 30, and 31, 
1998, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Gaithersburg Hilton, Grand Ballroom, 620 Perry Pkwy., 
Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Ermona B. McGoodwin, Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, or FDA Advisory Committee 
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC 
area), code 12530. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date 
information on this meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss documents on ``Guidance to 
Industry'' being developed by the Office of Drug Evaluation IV's 
Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products and the Division of Special 
Pathogens and Immunologic Drug Products. Copies of these draft guidance 
documents can be obtained from the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research (HFD-210), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4573, or requested by FAX at 301-827-4577. 
Electronic versions of these guidance documents will be available via 
Internet using the World Wide Web (www). To access the documents on the 
www, connect to CDER Home Page at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.htm.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by July 22, 1998. 
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. on July 29, 30, and 31, 1998. Time 
allotted for each presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make 
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person before July 
22, 1998, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the 
evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of 
proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time 
requested to make their presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 18, 1998.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 98-16934 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
No. 10-6493.

#### Eric Randall Hinkle, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1049, 131 S. Ct. 608,

178 L. Ed. 2d 443,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8831,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
# C_2015236EN.01001902.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann

(Case C-339/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Period of prohibition - Issue of the driving licence by a Member State before the entry into force of a period of prohibition in the Member State of normal residence - Grounds for refusing to recognise in the Member State of normal residence the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State))

(2015/C 236/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Party in the criminal proceedings

Party in the criminal proceedings

Andreas Wittmann

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a measure by which the Member State of normal residence of the driver of a motor vehicle, which is unable to withdraw his driving licence because he has already been subject to an earlier withdrawal decision, orders that a new driving licence may not be issued to him for a given period of time must be regarded as a measure restricting, suspending or withdrawing the driving licence for the purposes of that provision, with the consequence that it precludes the recognition of any licence issued by another Member State before the expiry of that period. The fact that the judgment concerning that measure became final after the issue of the driving licence in the second Member State is irrelevant in that regard, provided that the licence was obtained after the delivery of that judgment and the grounds justifying that measure existed on the date that licence was issued.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.

1

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Robert C. Morris, * From the 29th District

 Court of Palo Pinto County,

 Trial Court No. C45034.

Vs. No. 11-13-00199-CV * July 23, 2015

Kenneth N. Tarlton, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
STRM 2014.01.31 EX 10.14(b)




Exhibit 10.14(b)
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement is entered into as of March 6, 2014, by and between Streamline Health Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia (the “Company”), and Jack W. Kennedy Jr. (“Executive”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated September 8, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Company and Executive mutually agree to amend the Agreement as set forth below. 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1.The third sentence of Section 11(d) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


In the event that (i) the Company terminates the employment of Executive during the Term for reasons other than for Good Cause, death or Continued Disability or (ii) Executive terminates employment for Good Reason, then the Company will pay Executive the sum of (A) accrued but unpaid salary through the termination date (paid in accordance with the normal practices of the Company), (B) expenses incurred by Executive prior to his termination date for which Executive is entitled to reimbursement under (and paid in accordance with) Section 4 herein, and (C) provided that Executive is not in default of his obligations under Section 7, 8, or 9 herein, an amount equal to (x) six months’ base salary or (y) if such termination occurs in the Initial Term, the amount of base salary for the period commencing on the effective date of termination and ending on the last day of said term, whichever is greater ((A) through (C), being hereinafter referred to, collectively, as the “Separation Benefits”). 


2.This Amendment may be executed in one or more facsimile, electronic or original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which together shall constitute the same instrument.


3.Ratification. All terms and provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby, either expressly or by necessary implication, shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, all references to the term “Agreement” in this Amendment or the original Agreement shall include the terms contained in this Amendment.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement as of the date first set forth above.
	
			
	 
	“Company”

	 
	STREAMLINE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Robert E. Watson

	 
	Name:
	Robert E. Watson

	 
	Title:
	President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 
	 

	 
	“Executive”

	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Jack W. Kennedy Jr. 

	 
	Jack W. Kennedy Jr.
No. 10-7416.

#### Major Harrison Booth, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1116, 131 S. Ct. 839,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9722.

178 L. Ed. 2d 570,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 612 F.3d 306.
No. 10-6446.

#### Adrian Estrada, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 905,

178 L. Ed. 2d 760,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 441.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.

Same case below, 313 S.W.3d 274.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,514
<PP&E>                                         191,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,028
<BONDS>                                        155,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (101,303)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,119
<SALES>                                         55,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,391
<CGS>                                           51,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16725]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAITON


Public Buildings Service; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement Disposition of Governors Island, Upper 
New York Bay, NY

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, as implemented by the Council on 
Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the General Services 
Administration (GSA) has filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency and made available to other government and interested private 
parties, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 
disposition of surplus federal real property known as Governors Island, 
Upper New York Bay, New York.
    The Draft EIS is on file at New York City Hall, Manhattan Community 
District #6, Brooklyn Community District #6, Andrew Heiskell Library 
for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Mid-Manhattan Library, NY 
Public Library--New Amsterdam Branch, NY Public Library--Carroll 
Gardens Branch, NY Public Library--Red Hook Branch and General Services 
Administration.
    Copies of the Executive Summary of the Draft EIS are available upon 
request. Additional information may be obtained from General Services 
Administration, Region 2, Attention: Peter A. Sneed, 26 Federal Plaza, 
New York, New York, 10278, (212) 264-3581.
    Written comments regarding the DEIS may be submitted until July 27, 
1998 and should be addressed to General Services Administration in care 
of the above noted individual. A public hearing is scheduled for June 
24, 1998 at the U.S. Customs House, 1 Bowling Green, Lower Manhattan, 
New York; and for June 25, 1998 at the US District Court, 225 Cadman 
Plaza East, 1st Floor, Brooklyn, New York. Both hearings will be held 
from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

    Dated: June 1, 1998.
Robert Martin,
Acting Regional Administrator (2A).
[FR Doc. 98-16725 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M
No. 10-7242.

#### Ronald Lee Brown, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1148, 131 S. Ct. 928,

178 L. Ed. 2d 772,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 421.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Line List Template 

Instructions: This document is designed to be used as a line list template for investigations of outbreaks of unerespiratory illness. Upon notification of a potential cluster or outbreak, this document can be useorganize preliminary information on cases. Each case should be assigned a unique identifier (Carespective information should be added to a single row in the spreadsheet. The data fields contai

spreadsheet are suggestions and should be modified to reflect the needs of the current outbreak s

Definitions and suggested values for the data fields can be found on page 4 of this document. 

-1 - Updated
Line List Template 

Reporting County or State: __________ Date of Initial Report: ______

CaseID* Case Initials Age Sex Onset date Current Status Location Case Category Epi Links 

*Page 4 contains a description of the column headings 

-2 - Updated
Line List Template 

Reporting County or State: __________ Date of Initial Report: ______

CaseID Chest x-ray Specimens collected Testing requested 

-3 - Updated
Line List Template 

CaseID: Unique identifier assigned to each case-patient for this investigation 

Case initials: Case-patient initials Age: Age in years 

Sex: Male, Female or Unknown Onset date: Date of symptom onset, mm/dd/yy Current status: Outpatient, Inpatient, Inpatient ICU, Discharged, Died Location: Hospital, City, County Case category: Confirmed, probable, suspect Epi Links: Known exposures, affiliations or connections to other cases 

Underlying conditions: Significant immunodeficiencies, medications or other conditions that may alter the patient’s s

Chest x-ray: Was a chest x-ray performed? If so, what were the results? Specimens collected: Examples: Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate, oropharyngeal (OP) sw

aspirate, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), pleural fluid, lung tissue, blood, serum, urine 

Testing requested:* Examples: Culture, antigen detection, antibody/serology, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), i

(ICH) 

Results:* Findings of laboratory testing to date *Indicate specimen type for each test or result documented 

-4 - Updated
# Anniston distribution center supports Operation Inherent Resolve

/ Published Oct. 13, 2015
ANNISTON, Alabama, 

Over the last several months, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Anniston, Ala., has been doing its part to support Operation Inherent Resolve – the military operation against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), by supporting Foreign Military Sales requests for United States allied forces.

“DLA Distribution Anniston takes all requests for support very seriously, and when the call came in for Anniston to provide support for Operation Inherent Resolve, we jumped into action without hesitation,” said Army Lt. Col. Hattie Richardson, the distribution center’s commander.  

The initial notification came to DLA Distribution Anniston from U.S. Army TACOM, explaining what the upcoming mission requirements, including the timeframe.  The requirements included processing of Material Release Orders, quantity verification, picking, staging, packing, air clearance, and customer coordination, for more than 600 weapons within a four-month time frame.   

As soon as DLA Distribution Anniston’s Foreign Military Sales coordinator received the MROs for submission, the team began coordinating the processing and movement of the material to accomplish the mission within the customers’ requirements.  The Small Arms Division located the material, picked and verified the shipment quantities and then transported the material to the packing area for processing.  The Transportation Division packed, labeled, and marked the material for shipment.  

Susan Beavers, Transportation Division chief, said that “Employees did an outstanding job, and constant coordination and teamwork were essential to the success of this mission.” 

“Due to our organization’s constant professionalism and enthusiasm to provide the right material to the right customer at the right time, we ensured that our customers’ requirements were not only met but exceeded,” said Richardson.  “I am very proud of the hard work our employees put in on a daily basis to help us meet those goals.  For DLA Distribution Anniston, mission failure is never an option.”
No. 10-645.

#### Maureen K. Raynor, et vir, Petitioners v. Richard D. Myers, Trustee of the John P. Raynor Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

562 U.S. 1139, 131 S. Ct. 945,

178 L. Ed. 2d 756,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 117.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2015279EN.01001301.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

(Case C-147/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Effects - Rights conferred by a Community trade mark - Identical or similar signs - Prohibition of use - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment - Taking into consideration the use of a language other than an official language of the European Union))

(2015/C 279/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL

Defendants: AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the likelihood of confusion that may exist between a Community trade mark and a sign which cover identical or similar goods and which both contain a dominant Arabic word in Latin and Arabic script, those words being visually similar, in circumstances where the relevant public for the Community trade mark and for the sign at issue has a basic knowledge of written Arabic, the meaning and pronunciation of those words must be taken into account.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---
Norfolk & Little Creek, Virginia

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

**Start Date/Time:**

Wednesday, January 1, 2025 12:00 PM

**End Date/Time:**

Friday, January 31, 2025 12:30 PM

**Description:**

During the month of January, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, and satellite location Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, will transition to the Warehouse Management System. Customers with questions or concerns about their material are encouraged to reach out via the contact information on the Norfolk, Virginia location page. 

Enrolled Users:

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
No. 10-7624.

#### Adolfo Verdugo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1156, 131 S. Ct. 954,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 103.

178 L. Ed. 2d 787,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 617 F.3d 565.