alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
************************

MONOGRAPH NO: M7K 

************************

ITEM: Lime Beverage Base, Type II, Flavor 3, Fortification b 

NSN: 8960 01 487 0745 ITEM SPECIFICATION: CID A-A-20098B

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE: 150 (Secondary)

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM:

APPEARANCE: Dehydrated: Pale green, fine powder 

 Rehydrated: Bright green, slightly cloudy, pulpy specks of lime.

ODOR AND FLAVOR: Sweet, lime.

TEXTURE: Free flowing, fine powder, without lumps that cannot be broken apart with light finger 

pressure.

ESTIMATED SHELF LIFE: 80 DEGREES F- 36 months

DEFECTS LIKELY TO OCCUR:

APPEARANCE: Rehydrated: Coagulated, jelled, surface frothing or cloudiness, excessive sediment 

significantly affecting aesthetic appearance or flavor.

ODOR AND FLAVOR: Burnt, scorched, musty, oxidized or any other flavor not typical of the type 

of beverage.

TEXTURE: Lumpy, caked, not free flowing.

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: Prepare beverage IAW package instructions. 

Product should dissolve completely in about two minutes.

SPECIAL NOTES: If slight sedimentation and clouding are observed but the odor and flavor are 

normal, do not score the sedimentation as a defect during surveillance inspection; make not of it in 

the narrative for future use. Coagulation/gelation may occur if the original formulation was 

incorrect or if the product has been temperature abused for a long time. Coagulation/gelation 

results in clumps of granules that do not readily dissolve when product is reconstituted. Particles 

tend to float in suspension (look like gel pockets or tapioca granules that are clumped together)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8831]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Italian Style: Fashion Since 1945''

SUMMARY: 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, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Italian Style: Fashion Since 1945,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the 
Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, Minnesota, from on or about 
October 26, 2014, until on or about January 4, 2015, the Portland Art 
Museum, Portland, Oregon, from on or about February 7, 2015, until on 
or about May 3, 2015, the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, Nashville, 
Tennessee, from on or about June 5, 2015, until on or about September 
7, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 13, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-19753 Filed 8-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
No. 10-1458.

#### Aura Quinones, Petitioner v. Neighborhood Youth & Family Services, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 1074, 132 S. Ct. 800,

181 L. Ed. 2d 511,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8370.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 822, 132 S. Ct. 109, 181 L. Ed. 2d 35, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5490.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD URBANOVSKY, Individually

and as Trustee of the

Urbanovsky Family Trusts,

Appellant,

v.

FRANK URBANOVSKY, EDITH VICK,

MARY L. SMITH, and THEODORE 

URBANOVSKY,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00182-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law

of Hill County, Texas

(TC# CV727-19CCL)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Jurisdiction and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We further order 

Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
# C_2016455EN.01000501.xml

| 6.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/5

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

1

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 455/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2016) 7609 | 29 November 2016 | Trichloroethylene
  EC No 201-167-4
  CAS No 79-01-6 | A.L.P.A. — Azienda Lavorazione Prodotti Ausiliari S.p.a., Via Castellazzo 58, 20010 Pregnana Milanese, Milano, Italy | REACH/16/6/0 | Use as solvent in the synthesis of vulcanisation accelerating agents for fluoroelastomers | 21 April 2023 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility. |
| Caffaro Industrie S.p.a., piazzale Marinotti 1, 33050 Torviscosa (Udine), Italy | REACH/16/6/1 |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2016) 7609

29 November 2016

Trichloroethylene

EC No 201-167-4

CAS No 79-01-6

A.L.P.A. — Azienda Lavorazione Prodotti Ausiliari S.p.a., Via Castellazzo 58, 20010 Pregnana Milanese, Milano, Italy

REACH/16/6/0

Use as solvent in the synthesis of vulcanisation accelerating agents for fluoroelastomers

21 April 2023

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.

Caffaro Industrie S.p.a., piazzale Marinotti 1, 33050 Torviscosa (Udine), Italy

REACH/16/6/1

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

2

---
# C_2018252EN.01034801.xml

| 18.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/348 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/348

---

P8_TA(2017)0030

EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (10975/2016 — C8-0438/2016 — 2016/0205(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 252/38)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (10975/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (10975/2016),

| — | having regard to the draft Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (10973/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (10973/2016),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2), Article 91, Article 100(2), Article 153(2), Article 192(1), the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), point (a)(v) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6), and Article 218(7), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0438/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2), Article 91, Article 100(2), Article 153(2), Article 192(1), the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), point (a)(v) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6), and Article 218(7), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0438/2016),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0009/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0009/2017),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Canada. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Canada.

---
| 1. | Infosmart      Group Limited, a British Virgin Islands company (“Infosmart BVI”) – wholly      owned subsidiary of the Company |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Portabello      Global Limited, a British Virgin Island company – wholly owned      subsidiary of Infosmart BVI |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Info      Smart International Enterprises Limited, a Hong Kong company (“Info Smart      International”) – wholly owned subsidiary of Infosmart  BVI |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | Infoscience      Media Global Limited, a British Virgin Islands company – wholly owned      subsidiary of Infosmart BVI |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | Info      Smart Technology Limited, a Hong Kong company (“Info Smart      Technology) – wholly owned subsidiary of Infosmart  BVI |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6. | Infoscience      Media Limited, a Hong Kong company (“Infoscience Media”) – wholly owned      subsidiary of Info Smart Technology |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7.  | Manwin      International Limited, a Hong Kong company – 50% owned subsidiary of      Infoscience Media |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 8.  | Discobra      Industria E Comercio de Eletro Eletronica Ltda, a Brazilian company      – 99.42% owned subsidiary of Infoscience  Media |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0137 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL ROBERT KOCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 26 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 18 2020

09/18/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0137
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED C URTIS ANTON FAULK , A ppellant ,
v. Cas e No

. 5D 23 -1 389 LT Cas e No s

. 1996 -C F -0 05311 -A

1996- CF -0 05310 -A S TATE OF FLORIDA , A ppellee

. ________________________________/ D ecision filed June 28, 2023 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County , Mark Borello , Judge. Curtis A. Faulk, Lake Butler, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT , C.J. , WALLIS and EDWARDS , JJ. , concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANDREUS SANTOLOCI,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2796

[June 23, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Scott Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-MH-002795-

XXXX-SB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jacqueline I. 

Kurland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________
IN RE ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGR EN

__________________________
201 3-1 25 8

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Southern District of New York in No. 13

- CV

- 1124, Judge Loretta A. Preska.

__________________________
ON MOTION

__________________________
P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R Anthony Brian Mallgren moves for leave to pr o ceed in forma pauperis , which is also tr eated as a motion to reinstate. Mr. Mallgren filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that he was unable to obtain a patent because he could not pay the application fee. According to Mr. Mallgre n ’s complaint

, the fee const ituted a violation of the Ninth Amendment of the Const itution, which provides: “The enumeration in the Case: 13-1258 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2013IN RE MALLGREN 2

Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others r e tained by the people.”

Mr. Mallgr en moved to proceed in forma pauperis

, which was granted by the district court. Shortly after the filing of the complaint, however, the court dismissed the suit as frivolous . The court explained that Mr. Mallgren had failed to establish any Ninth Amendme nt violation

, and thus presented no legal theory in support of his

co m plaint. The district court further certified that any appeal from its order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). When a district court has so certified, a li ti gant may still file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the appellate court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(5). In evaluating such requests , however, the court
ent i tle s “great weight” to the district court’s decision that
an ap peal should not be taken. Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 455 (1962) (citing Johnson v. United States , 352 U.S. 565, 566 (1957)

. Based on this court’s own review, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. To the extent that Mr. Mallgren wis hes to pursue his constitutional cha llenges it may be the better course for him to seek review from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office denying his patent applica tions

. To the extent th at he still wishes to pursue this current case, the appeal w ill only be reinstat ed if Mr. Mallgren pays the reg u lar court filing fee w ithin 60 days from the date of this order. Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The motion is d e nied

. Case: 13-1258 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2013IN RE MALLGREN 3

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Danie l E. O’Toole Clerk

s19 Case: 13-1258 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2013
No. 11-6107.

#### Judith Tompson, Petitioner v. Massachusetts Department of Mental Health.

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

181 L. Ed. 2d 802,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 438.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 984, 132 S. Ct. 512, 181 L. Ed. 2d 360, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7781.
OSI-12.31.11_EX10.56






Exhibit 10.56


John W. Cooper


BONEFISH GRILL®
Amendment To 
Officer Employment Agreement


THIS AMENDMENT TO OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”)  is entered into by and among BONEFISH GRILL, LLC,  a Florida limited liability company formerly known as BONEFISH GRILL, INC., a Florida corporation (the “Employer”)  and JOHN W. COOPER (the “Employee”) to be effective for all purposes as of January 1, 2012.


WHEREAS, Employer employs Employee as President of the Employer pursuant to that certain Officer Employment Agreement dated effective August 1, 2001 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 


WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this Amendment in order to change the Employment Agreement to reflect that the Employee has been promoted to Executive Vice President and President of the Company.


NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, for good consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1.Recitals. The parties acknowledge and agree that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.


2.Change of Employee's Title. The parties acknowledge and agree that all references in the Employment Agreement to the Employee being employed as President of the Employer are hereby amended to state that the Employee is employed as Executive Vice President and President of the Employer effective January 1, 2012.


3.Ratification. All other terms of the Employment Agreement as amended hereby are hereby ratified and confirmed by each party. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as set forth above.


	
									
	 
	 
	 
	“EMPLOYEE”
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	/s/ John W. Cooper
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	JOHN W. COOPER
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	“EMPLOYER”
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Attest:
	 
	BONEFISH GRILL, LLC,
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	a Florida limited liability company
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	By:
	 
	OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC,
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	a Delaware limited liability company and its
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	managing member
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Kelly Lefferts
	 
	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Joseph J. Kadow
	 
	 

	 
	Kelly Lefferts, Assistant Secretary
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Joseph J. Kadow, Executive Vice President
No. 11-179.

#### Michael O’Rourke, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. Palisades Acquisition, XVI, LLC, et al.

565 U.S. 1177, 132 S. Ct. 1141,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1017,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1024.

January 23, 2012.

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

Same case below, 635 F.3d 938.
### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-3157 Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk November 23, 1998
TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT RE: 98-1246, United States v. Nichols Filed on November 18, 1998 The order and judgment filed on November 18, 1998, contains a typographical error. On page two, in the final paragraph, the th ird sentence should appear as follows: Relying on our opinion in number 98-1247, we now af firm the district court’s decision with respect to this appeal. A copy of the corrected order and judgment is attac hed for your convenience. Sincerely, Patrick Fisher, Clerk of Court By: Keith Nelson Deputy Clerk

encl.* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 18 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 98-1246 (D.C. No. 96-CR-68-M) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM
. After examining the preliminary record and material s on file, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument is unnece ssary in this matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant Terry Lynn Nichols appeals from the distr ict court’s June 24, 1998 order rescinding certain restrictions which pr ohibited the government from-2-

cooperating fully with state authorities investigat ing the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995. The iss ue which Mr. Nichols raises on appeal is the exact same one addressed in appeal number 98-1247, United States v. McVeigh , 157 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1998). In that publisheddecision, we held the district court did not abuse its discretio n in lifting the prior prohibition on cooperation with state authorities. Id. at 815. Mr. Nichols joined that parallel proceeding as an i ntervenor on August 17, 1998. He filed briefs as well as a petition for re hearing. Relying on our opinion in number 98-1247, we now affirm the district court ’s decision with respect to this appeal. The stay entered in this matter via o ur order of July 7, 1998, is dissolved. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court
Per Curiam