alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-594.

#### Mary Ellen Rooters, Petitioner v. State Farm Lloyds.

565 U.S. 1114, 132 S. Ct. 1039,

181 L. Ed. 2d 740,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 393.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 441.
No. 11-7491.

#### Ioseb Kharabadze, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1132, 132 S. Ct. 1054,

181 L. Ed. 2d 773,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 95.

January 9, 2012.

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

*774Same case below, 655 F.3d 114.
No. 11-5525.

#### Keith Taskey, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

565 U.S. 1159, 132 S. Ct. 1090,

181 L. Ed. 2d 982,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 754.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 78 Mass. App. 787, 941 N.E.2d 713.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 37 (Thursday, February 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4020]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Alliance for Flexible Polyurethane Foam, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 5, 2009, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Alliance for Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam, Inc. (``AFPF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Alliance for 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam, Inc. (``AFPF''), Loudon, TN. The nature and 
scope of AFPF's standards development activities are: To develop 
standards related to flexible polyurethane foam, and to certify 
flexible polyurethane foam meeting those standards.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-4020 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No. 09-8221.

#### Tracy Semple, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

559 U.S. 978, 130 S. Ct. 1700,

176 L. Ed. 2d 191,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2199.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 74 Mass. App. 1124, 909 N.E.2d 557.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00352-CR

Didier Saho

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 6

of Tarrant County (1236650)

May 28, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
amend5convertible.htm


EXHIBIT 4.1


AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO


GREEN BALLAST, INC.


8% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 

 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 5, dated as of March 31, 2012 (the “Amendment”), to the 8% Senior Secured Convertible Note, dated as of April 15, 2011, as amended from time to time (the “Gemini Note”), by Green Ballast, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company issued the Gemini Note to Gemini Master Fund, Ltd., a Cayman Islands corporation (the “Holder”) on April 15, 2011; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire to enter into this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, the Company and the Holder agree as follows:


 


1.  Section 7(a)(vi) of the Gemini Note is hereby amended by deleting Section 7(a)(vi) in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 


vi.           if at any time after May 1, 2012, the Common Stock shall not be eligible for listing or quotation for trading on a Trading Market and shall not be eligible to resume listing or quotation for trading thereon within five (5) Trading Days, or the Company fails to use its best efforts to cause the Common Stock to be listed or quoted on a Trading Market after May 1, 2012; provided however, that in the event the Company (i) files an S-1 to register for resale the Holder’s Common Stock (including the Conversion Shares issuable upon conversion thereof) and (ii) reasonably diligently responds to comments from the Commission or otherwise uses its best efforts to seek effectiveness of the S-1, the Company shall not be deemed to be in default or breach of this Note if the Commission fails to declare the S-1 effective by February 1, 2012, thereby causing to delay or prevent the Common Stock from becoming eligible for listing or quotation for trading on a Trading Market;


 


2. Except to the extent amended hereby, the Gemini Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3. All capitalized terms used herein, and not otherwise defined herein, have the respective meanings given to such terms in the Gemini Note.


 


4. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original document.  Electronic signatures, whether by fax, e-mail, or other electronic means, shall be treated as original signatures.


 







 


[Signature page to follow.]


 














  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first set forth above.


 



 


 



	 	COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	GREEN BALLAST, INC.





 


 



	 	By:  	/s/ Kevin Adams  






	 	Name:	Kevin Adams
	 	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer





 



 


 


 



	 	
HOLDER:


	 	 
	 	
GEMINI MASTER FUND, LTD.


By: GEMINI STRATEGIES, LLC, as investment manager







 


 



	 	By:  	/s/ Steven Winters






	 	Name:	Steven Winters
	 	Title: 	Managing Member









 


 


 


 


2
# C_2016417EN.01000902.xml

| 11.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/9

---

EUROPEAN SECURITIES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2015

(2016/C 417/33)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.esma.europa.eu/databases-library/esma-library/?f%25255B0%25255D=im_esma_sections%3A420&f%5B0%5D=im_esma_sections%3A420

---
# STATEOF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PAMELA RUSAS BARBEE NO. 

### 2022 KW 0035 MARCH 28, 2022 In Re: Pamela Rosas Barbee, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

### Tammany, No. 

### 3454- M- 2020. BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, 

### AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JMM WIL EW



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

### NAI DEPUTYLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20359]



[[Page 40720]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 98F-0593]


Dover Chemical Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that 
Dover Chemical Corp. has filed a petition proposing that the food 
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of 3,9-
bis[2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)phenoxy]-2,4,8,10-tetraoxa-3,9-
diphosphaspiro[5.5]undecane, which may contain not more than 2 percent 
by weight of triisopropanolamine, as an antioxidant and/or stabilizer 
for polymers intended for use in contact with food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Vir D. Anand, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215),Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. 
SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food 
additive petition (FAP 8B4614) has been filed by Dover Chemical Corp., 
3676 Davis Rd. NW., Dover, OH 44622. The petition proposes to amend the 
food additive regulations in Sec. 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or 
stabilizers for polymers (21 CFR 178.2010) to provide for the safe use 
of 3,9-bis[2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)phenoxy]-2,4,8,10-tetraoxa-
3,9-diphosphaspiro[5.5]undecane, which may contain not more than 2 
percent by weight of triisopropanolamine, as an antioxidant and/or 
stabilizer for polymers intended for use in contact with food.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(i) that this action is 
of the type that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

    Dated: July 11, 1998.
George H. Pauli,
Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 98-20359 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at April 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and
the Consolidated Statement of Income for the three months ended April 30, 2000
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,282
<PP&E>                                         110,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 346,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          545,876
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       102,135
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   346,429
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                72,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (76,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (76,668)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
No. 09-693.

#### William Kyle, et al., Petitioners v. Hon. Gerald Lebovits, et al.

559 U.S. 938, 130 S. Ct. 1524,

176 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1341.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 58 App. Div. 3d 521, 870 N.Y.S.2d 360.
No. 09-773.

#### Steven Lerman, et al., Petitioners v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

559 U.S. 940, 130 S. Ct. 1543,

176 L. Ed. 2d 116,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1465.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 346 Fed. Appx. 500.
# Nomenclature

# B1

# B2

# B3

# B4

# B5

# B6

# B7

# D1

# D2

# D3

# D4

# D5

# D6

# D7

# D8

# D9

# D10

# D11

# D12

# D13

# D14

# Sheet1

# Sheet2
# C_2016417EN.01001001.xml

| 11.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/10

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR NETWORK AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2015

(2016/C 417/36)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa/accounting-finance

---
Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- RICHARD AVILA, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-05-091

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2016.

DECISION

On October 29,2015, Defendant was sentenced to the Montana State Prison for a period of ten (10) years with five (5) suspended with a recommendation for placement at the Treasure State Correctional Facility. Defendant was given credit for thirty-one (31) days served in custody prior to disposition in this matter. Defendant must comply with all requirements of the Court’s Judgment of June 30, 2005, as conditions of parole.

On February 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by video conferencing from the Yellowstone County Detention Facility and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

*2DATED this 29th day of February, 2016.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. John Warner, Member.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,023
<INVENTORY>                                     40,158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,697
<PP&E>                                          90,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,524
<OTHER-SE>                                   (361,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,060
<SALES>                                        323,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,023
<CGS>                                          153,312
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  271,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,921
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 09-7978.

#### Otis Blaxton, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 947, 130 S. Ct. 1520,

176 L. Ed. 2d 126,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1440.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Carl THAYSEN, Appellant, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 14698.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 13, 1964.

Decided March 16, 1964.

Francis A. Ferrara, Chester, Pa. (Garland D. Cherry, Chester, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Norman Paul Harvey, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This civil action was removed to the federal district court from the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in which it commenced. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446. The appellant’s motion for remand was denied and the appellee was granted leave to amend the jurisdictional allegations of its petition for removal. The present appeal followed. The denial of a motion for remand, such as we have here, is not a final decision appealable under § 1291 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. Peterson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, et al., 268 F.2d 567 (7th Cir. 1959); Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 212 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1954); Tinkoff v. Holly, 209 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1954); Lewis v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 183 F.2d 29, 21 A.L.R.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1950). As an interlocutory decision it is not within the category of those orders appealable under § 1292 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.

The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- COREY MIKE KELLY, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-081

DECISION

On January 21, 2016, the Defendant’s deferred sentence was revoked for violation of conditions and he was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, with two (2) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony, in violation of §45-9-102, MCA. The Defendant received credit for time served on this revocation of 58 days for a total credit for time served of 144 days. The Court recommended that the Defendant be placed in the NEXUS Program. If the Department of Corrections deemed it appropriate for the Defendant to be released early, the Court would consider that recommendation. The Court further ordered that the relevant conditions previously imposed be re-imposed as conditions of the suspended portion of the Defendant’s sentence.

On August 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by Vision Net from NEXUS and was represented *75by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Done in open Court this 4th day of August, 2016.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2016.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
No. 09-8166.

#### Darryl Gray, Petitioner v. William Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

559 U.S. 951, 130 S. Ct. 1535,

176 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1335.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
No. 11-6119.

#### Gilbert Washington, Petitioner v. School Board of Hillsborough County.

565 U.S. 1151, 132 S. Ct. 1084,

181 L. Ed. 2d 802,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 549.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 967, 132 S. Ct. 473, 181 L. Ed. 2d 302, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7585.