alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

987 

CA 12-00576 

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

 

JOSHUA JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JORGE DEL VALLE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

THE MATHEWS LAW FIRM, SYRACUSE (DANIEL F. MATHEWS, III, OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (ROBERT P. CAHALAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John

C. Cherundolo, A.J.), entered November 3, 2011 in a personal injury

action. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary

judgment and dismissed the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied

and the complaint is reinstated. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries he sustained at work when defendant, plaintiff’s coemployee,

allegedly threw a baseball that struck plaintiff’s face. Defendant

moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that

workers’ compensation is plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, and Supreme

Court granted the motion. We reverse. Workers’ compensation is the

exclusive remedy of an employee injured “by the negligence or wrong of

another in the same employ” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). 

“[T]he words ‘in the same employ’ as used in the Workers’ Compensation

Law are not satisfied simply because both plaintiff and defendant have

the same employer; a defendant, to have the protection of the

exclusivity provision, must . . . have been acting within the scope of

his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or

intentional tort” (Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., 50 NY2d 535,

543). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met his initial burden

on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of

fact with respect thereto (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,

49 NY2d 557, 562). Here, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact

“whether the actions of defendant were within the scope of his

employment by submitting evidence that defendant’s conduct was neither

common nor condoned” in their workplace (Cloutier v Longo, 288 AD2d

942, 942; see Maines, 50 NY2d at 544-545; Shumway v Kelley, 60 AD3d

1457, 1459; cf. generally Lowe v Kinn, 199 AD2d 743, 744-745, lv 
-2- 987 

CA 12-00576 

denied 83 NY2d 753).

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

1

DIC FJ1/FJ2/GJ1/GJ2 FORMAT

BILLING FOR BULK PETROLEUM

Field Legend Position(s) Entry and Instructions

DI Code 1-3 Enter 

FJ1 or GJ1 (charge) 

FJ2 or GJ2 (credit)

RI Code 4-6 Enter RI code of the billing office.

Sales Price Condition 

Code

7 Enter applicable code or leave blank.

Stock Number 8-20 Enter the NSN or part number of the product 

shipped.

Blank 21-22 Leave blank.

Quantity 23-29 Enter the quantity billed or credited.

Document Number 30-43 Perpetuate from the MILSPETS requisition 

(from stock) or delivery order (from vendor).

Suffix 44 Perpetuate from the shipment when there 

are multiple shipments against the same 

document number.

Otherwise leave blank.

Supplementary Address 45-50 Perpetuate from the requisition or delivery 

order.

Signal Code 51 Perpetuate from the requisition or delivery 

order.

Fund Code 52-53 Perpetuate from the requisition or delivery 

order.

Bill Number 54-58 Enter bill number from SBR.

Mode/Method Code 59 For a security assistance shipment enter the 

mode/method code. 

Otherwise, leave blank.

Type of Bill Code 60-61 Enter a type of bill code or leave blank.

Shipment/Cargo 

Number

62-64 For vendor shipments against a delivery 

order, perpetuate the last three positions of 
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

2

Field Legend Position(s) Entry and Instructions

the shipment/cargo number.

Otherwise leave blank.

Amount 65-73 Enter the extended amount e.g., unit price 

times quantity.

65-71 Dollars

72-73 Cents

Unit Price 74-80 Enter the standard unit price:

74-77 Dollars

78-80 Mills
No. 10-10710.

#### Jabbar Wallace, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

565 U.S. 845, 132 S. Ct. 162,

181 L. Ed. 2d 76,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6476.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.

Same case below, 15 A.3d 536.
No. 11-5136.

#### Jesus Rodriguez-Camacho, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 891, 132 S. Ct. 273,

181 L. Ed. 2d 161,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5740.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 11-5313.

#### In re Richard Hettler, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 813, 132 S. Ct. 396,

181 L. Ed. 2d 249,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6516.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 06 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
               (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63
                        OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350 , chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of DuraVest, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"),
does certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB
for the three months ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that: (1) the 10-QSB Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the 10-QSB Report
fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
the Company.



                                DURAVEST, INC..

Dated:  August 10, 2004         By: /s/ Patti Cooke
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Patti Cooke, President, Principal Executive,
                                    Financial and Accounting Officer and Sole
                                    Director
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 

ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 

TERMINATION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCKHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT 

This Termination of Amended and Restated Stockholders’ Agreement (this “Termination”) amends, effective as of
            , 2014, that certain Amended and Restated Stockholders’ Agreement dated as of September 27, 2010 (as amended from time to time, the “Agreement”) by
and among Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“ADS”), and the Stockholders (as defined in the Agreement). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Termination shall have the respective meanings set forth
in the Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, Section 6.4 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by
written agreement of ADS and each of (a) the American Securities Group (as long as the American Securities Group is a Major Stockholder), (b) the Chlapaty Trustee (as long as the Chlapaty Group is a Major Stockholder) and (c) the
holders of not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the then-outstanding ADS Common Stock held by Stockholders; and 
 WHEREAS, the
undersigned, being ADS and each of (a) the American Securities Group, (b) the Chlapaty Trustee and (c) the holders of not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the presently-outstanding ADS Common Stock held by Stockholders,
desire to amend the Agreement as set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the covenants contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the undersigned agree as follows. 

§1. Amendment. The Agreement is hereby terminated, canceled and of no further force or effect, effective as of the date first set
forth above. 
 §2. Governing Law. This Termination shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the domestic laws of
the State of Delaware without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of
Delaware. 
 §3. Counterparts. This Termination may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by means of PDF or
facsimile), each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

[Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Termination effective as of
the date first above written. 
 ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 
  

											
	By:	 	  
	 		 	  

		 	Mark B. Sturgeon, EVP & CFO	 		 	Joseph A. Chlapaty
				
		 		 		 	JOSEPH A. CHLAPATY TRUST
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	  

		 		 		 		 	Joseph A. Chlapaty, Trustee
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	Fifth Third Bank, Trustee
						
		 		 		 		 	By:	 	  

		 		 		 		 	Name:	 	  

		 		 		 		 	Title:	 	  

				
		 		 		 	ASP ADS INVESTCO, LLC
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	ASP MANAGER CORP., its Manager
						
		 		 		 		 	By:	 	  

		 		 		 		 	Name:	 	  

		 		 		 		 	Title:	 	  



  
 2
No. 10-10864.

#### Sealed Defendant, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 854, 132 S. Ct. 182,

181 L. Ed. 2d 92,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6438.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 416 Fed. Appx. 372.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19775]


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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations

AGENCY: United States Information Agency.

ACTION: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 
(43 F.R. 13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 
27, 1985 (50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985).

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

SUMMARY: I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the 
exhibit DELACROIX; THE LATE YEARS (see list), imported from various 
foreign lenders for the temporary exhibition without profit within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also determined 
that the exhibition or display of the listed exhibit objects at the 
Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from on or about 
September 15, 1998, to on or about January 3, 1999, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol B. Epstein, Assistant General 
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 202/619-6981, and the address 
is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20547-0001.

    Dated: July 20, 1998.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-19775 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.21



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350



I, Eric Smit, the chief financial officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my
knowledge,



(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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

/s/    ERIC N.
SMITEric N. SmitMay 14, 2004






A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGain Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain
Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

1 The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
No. 11-6264.

#### Michael Sindram, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 957, 132 S. Ct. 437,

181 L. Ed. 2d 284,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7247.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 16 A.3d 974.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1126 

CA 13-00233 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF PABLO DEJESUS, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANDREA W. EVANS, CHAIRWOMAN, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JONATHAN D. HITSOUS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered May 23, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. 

The judgment denied the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: Inasmuch as petitioner has been released to parole

supervision, his appeal from the judgment denying his CPLR article 78

petition seeking release to parole has been rendered moot (see People

ex rel. Baron v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 94 AD3d 1410,

1410, lv denied 19 NY3d 807; People ex rel. Graham v Fischer, 70 AD3d

1381, 1381-1382; People ex rel. Mitchell v Unger, 63 AD3d 1591, 1591),

and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see

Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410; Graham, 70 AD3d at 1381-1382; see generally

Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Going the Distance to Support SAPR

April 1-30, 2017 

Participant Name:

PLFA, J, or D Code and Local Directorate: 

Participant Email Address:

SARC's Name:

Track your points on the calendar and submit your progress every Monday to: SAPR@dla.mil

April 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1

2 3

SUBMIT

TRACKER!

4 5 6 7 8

9 10

SUBMIT 

TRACKER!

11 12 13 14 15

16 17

SUBMIT 

TRACKER!

18 19 20 21 22

23 24

SUBMIT 

TRACKER!

25 26 27 28 29

30 May 1st – Final Tracker DUE

Submit Tracker every Monday to: SAPR@dla.mil

∗ Wear Teal on Tuesday = 100 points

∗ 30 minutes of strength training/fitness activity = 500 points

∗ Take a Teal Tuesday WELLBEATS class at your MWR fitness facility = 500 points

∗ Walk/run/swim/cycle 1 mile (2000 steps) = 100 points

∗ “Like” DefenseMWR on Facebook = 100 points

∗ Attend/Participate in a SAPR event = 100 points

∗ Wear Denim on Denim Day = 100 points

Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month activities will be held at each PLFA and military installations worldwide

See the DLA SAPR website for more details: http://www.dla.mil/Info/SAPR.aspx

Or your installation SAPR/SHARP website

Local Events May Vary
No. 10-10516.

#### Jimmy Morgan, Petitioner v. Andrew Jackson, Warden.

565 U.S. 839, 132 S. Ct. 148,

181 L. Ed. 2d 65,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6003.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19355]



[[Page 39069]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


West Indigo Timber Sales and Other Projects, Siskiyou National 
Forest, Josephine County, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: On March 18, 1991 a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the West Indigo Timber Sales 
and Other Projects on the Galice Ranger District of the Siskiyou 
National Forest was published in the Federal Register (56 FR 11404). A 
Notice of Availability for the draft EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on September 25, 1992 (57 FR 36704). The comment period on the 
draft EIS ended November 9, 1992. Forest Service has decided to cancel 
the environmental analysis process. There will be no EIS for this 
project at this time NOI is rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
cancellation to Peter Gaulke, Supervisory Forester, Galice Ranger 
District, 200 N.E. Greenfield Avenue, Grants Pass, Oregon 97526, phone 
541-471-6500.

    Dated: July 9, 1998.
Robert F. Ettner,
Natural Resource Staff.
[FR Doc. 98-19355 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000

DEC 27 200

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION
DIRECTOR, COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
DIRECTOR, NET ASSESSMENT
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES
DIRECTORS OF THE DOD FIELD ACTIVITIES

SUBJECT: Consideration of Costs in DoD Decision-Making

On August 9, 2010, I directed that any new proposal or initiative, large or small, be it
policy, program, or ceremony, come with a cost estimate. To implement this plan, the Director, -
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, working with the military departments, established a
Cost Guidance Group to develop guidance, methods, and tools that assist DoD employees in
estimating costs associated with Department’s business activities.

As of December 1, 2010, the resulting guidance and support tools have been made
available on an internal DoD website (https://www.cape.osd.mil/costguidance/) to any DoD
employee who has a Common Access Card. The site includes a tool that calculates the
approximate costs associated with preparing and publishing a study or report. This tool is
intended to improve the transparency of costs associated with reports and studies sponsored or
prepared by the Department. The web site also includes tools for calculating government costs
associated with personnel attending a conference, sponsoring a conference, hosting a conference,
or hosting a DoD-related event or ceremony. In addition, the website includes guidance for
performing business case analyses and economic analyses on proposed changes to Department
policies or programs.

I urge you to begin using these tools now. I am directing that, effective February 1, 2011,
all of these tools be used to calculate costs associated with the aforementioned business activities
in the Department. After this date, every new proposal or initiative shall come with a cost
estimate, and every report or study shall include the cost of that study on the front cover.

a>

&



All DoD Components are required to comply with this directive and are expected to fully
support and cooperate with the guidance to ensure that costs are routinely considered in decision-
making throughout the Department.

“Feet pe
No. 11-6574.

#### Anthony Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 992, 132 S. Ct. 534,

181 L. Ed. 2d 374,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7633.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 616.
**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.49. APPENDIX 8.49**

**TRANSFERS TO DLA DISPOSITION SERVICES FIELD OFFICE ON 1348-1A OR DD FORM 1348-2(SINGLE LINE-ITEM TURN-INS)**

AP8.49-5

5

APPENDIX 3.49

AP8.49-6	APPENDIX 8.49
No. 11-5845.

#### Arseles D. Miller, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 965, 132 S. Ct. 473,

181 L. Ed. 2d 298,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7589.

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-6493.

#### In re Gladstone McDowell, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 940, 132 S. Ct. 443,

181 L. Ed. 2d 290,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7223.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
SERVED: MARCH 26, 2014

·-·.. - ;·\· U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION ·, --.- i OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC ·.; ·.**~,**

# ., ' I '
. ·, i.**·~ ~-**  IN THE MATTER OF PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPARTMENT DOCKETNO. FAA-2013-1086 (Civil Penalty Action)**'~** ,. I'' •

NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011S0190181) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

r

ChiefAdministrativ Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Feder Aviation Administration 800 I dependence Avenue, S.W. Wash ngton, DC 20591 Atten ion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY
Rico Police Department, Respondent ox 70166 an, PR 00936-8166 Meli saRios Montoya, Esquire, Director DocketNo. FAA-2013-1086 (Civil Penalty Action)

·Nazi aM. Abdulrahman Soler, Attorney, Respondent'sRepresentatives

Offi e ofLegal Affairs P.O. ox 70166 San uan, P.R. 00936-8166 TEL 787-793-1234 ext. 3067,3408, or 2203 F : NOT PROVIDED Chri top her R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel Offi e ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Sou em Region Fed ral Aviation Administration 170 ColumbiaAvenue Col ege Park, GA 30337 TE 404-305-5200 F : 404-305-5223 Ho . J.E. Sullivan,Administrative Law Judge Of 'Ce ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 120 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) W hington, DC 20590 TE 202-366-6941 FA : 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Avi tion Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 0591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
No. 11M33.

#### Penelope W., Petitioner v. Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Center.

565 U.S. 939, 132 S. Ct. 445,

181 L. Ed. 2d 253,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7316.

October 11, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 19 A.3d 813.
No. 10-1371.

No. 10-1393.

#### Spectrum Stores, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al. Fast Break Foods LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Saudi Arabian Oil Company, dba Saudi Aramco, et al.

565 U.S. 929, 132 S. Ct. 366,

181 L. Ed. 2d 233,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7122.

October 3, 2011.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Same cases below, 632 F.3d 938.