alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 CR 0855 - 2 DATE 11/14/2011

CASE

TITLE

United States vs. Alcantara

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

On December 9, 2010, Richard Alcanatara filed a motion in this court for nunc pro tunc judgment [254] to

clarify his restitution fine. The court grants Alcantara’s motion for speedy disposition [255] of that motion,

and the court takes Alcantara’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment under advisement. Because the

government has not had the opportunity to respond to the motion for nunc pro tunc judgment, this court asks

the government to file a response to that motion by December 5, 2011.

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

RJ/CAS

03CR0855 - 2 United States vs. Alcantara Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:03-cr-00855 Document #: 256 Filed: 11/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:789
Termination of Purchase and Assumption Agreement


 Exhibit 10.1 
 TERMINATION 
 OF 
 PURCHASE AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT 
 This Termination of Purchase and Assumption Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into effective December 28, 2009, by and between Sterling Bank, a Texas chartered banking association
(“Buyer”) and First Bank, a Missouri state chartered bank (“Seller”). 
 WHEREAS, effective
as of August 7, 2009, Buyer and Seller executed a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (the “Purchase and Assumption Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, Section 10.1(a) of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement permits Buyer and Seller to terminate the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Buyer and Seller hereby terminate the Purchase and Assumption Agreement with such effect as provided under
Section 10.2 of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Buyer and Seller have
executed this Agreement on the date first above written. 
  

			
	STERLING BANK
		
	By:	 	 /s/ J. Downey Bridgwater

		 	J. Downey Bridgwater
		 	Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
	
	FIRST BANK
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Terrance M. McCarthy

		 	Terrance M. McCarthy
		 	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Immunity and Disease Prevention Research: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Laboratories
                        Stephensen Group
                                    Kable Group
                                    Lemay GroupSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




USDA researchers are examining the effects of dietary fiber on the intestinal microbiome and immune function in order to improve health and prevent diseases linked to intestinal and systemic immune activation and inflammation.


Mission


People Alkan, Zeynep Caswell, Bess Herrera, Wesley Huang, Shurong Jiang, Xiaowen Kable, Mary Lemay, Danielle Snodgrass, Ryan Stephensen, Charles Storms, David


Pacific West Area   charles.stephensen@ars.usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.2




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the May 28, 2003 Registration
Statement on Form S-3/A (Registration No. 333-81320), the May 2, 2001
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-60004) and the April 4,
2000 Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-35450) of
PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2002 included
in the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002.



                                           LARSON, ALLEN, WEISHAIR & CO., LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2003
S. J. Res. 7 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for the reappointment of Shirley Ann Jackson as a citizen regent of 

the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), 

the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 

in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason 

of the expiration of the term of Shirley Ann Jackson of New York, 

is filled by reappointment of the incumbent for a term of 6 years, 

effective May 6, 2011. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### STORM v. VANDENBURGH et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

X Equity—Complaint—Remedy at Law.

A complaint in equity need not allege that there is no adequate remedy at law. It is enough that the complaint shows the need of an equitable remedy.

*2913. Same—Adequacy oe Legal Remedy.

An action for damages against a trustee, though solvent, is not such an adequate remedy as to oust equity of jurisdiction of an action against him by the cestui que trust to set aside a sale of land.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by Irene E. Storm by Jaques Van Brunt, her guardian ad. litem, against Jacob L. Vandenburgh and others, to set aside a sale made by said Vandenburgh, as trustee, of certain real estate in the late town of New Utrecht. Prom an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Hector M. Hitchings, for appellants.

Josiah T. Marean, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The appellants object to the complaint that it contains no allegation that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. No such allegation is necessary. When the case made by the complaint sufficiently shows the need of an equitable remedy, the only benefit from an allegation that such relief was requisite will be to call attention to a fact which already sufficiently appears. In the present case the complaint avers the destruction of a trust in which the plaintiff has a contingent interest. There being no allegation that the trustee is insolvent, the defendants suggest that an action for damages againsr the trustee is an adequate remedy. In order to oust the equitable remedy, the legal remedy must be as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity. Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210; Arthur v. Oakes, 11 C. C. A. 209, 63 Fed. 328. Or, as expressed by Fuller, C. J., in Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505, 514, 9 Sup. Ct. 594, the jurisdiction in equity attaches unless the legal remedy, both in respect to the final relief and the mode of obtaining it, is as efficient as the remedy in equity. In other words, the suitor is entitled, not only to an adequate remedy, but to the best remedy, which must depend on many considerations, as to which the suitor is in general the best judge. Under any other rule the rights of the suitor will often, while ostensibly protected, practically be sacrificed, and he will get the shell of protection and lose the substance. To sum up, in any given case the suitor is entitled to avail himself of the best remedy afforded by either law or equity, and in the price he may proceed to protect the fund, and will not be remitted to an action at law against the trustee. As pointed out in the opinion below, a contingent remainder is a right which courts recognize and will protect. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EX-4.6





 Exhibit 4.6 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 ATHENEX, INC. 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 

2017 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The Athenex,
Inc. Amended and Restated 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows, effective June 18, 2021: 

1. Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 

“(a) Subject to the provisions of Section 10 below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued pursuant to all
Awards shall be 12,700,000 Shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to the provisions of Section 10, below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to Incentive Stock Options is 12,700,000 Shares. The Shares to
be issued pursuant to Awards may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.” 
 2. Section 4(d) of the Plan is
hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 
 “(d) [Intentionally omitted.]” 

3. Section 12 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 

“12. Effective Date and Term of Plan. The original Plan became effective upon the Company’s initial public offering on
June 13, 2017. On May 23, 2019, the Board adopted the amended and restated Plan, which became effective upon the approval of the stockholders thereof on June 5, 2020. The Plan was amended to increase the maximum aggregate number of
Shares available under the Plan by a First Amendment thereto, which was adopted by the Board on April 19, 2021, and became effective upon the approval of the stockholders thereof on June 18, 2021. Unless sooner terminated as provided in
Section 13, the Plan shall terminate on the date that is ten (10) years from the date that the Plan was last approved by the stockholders of the Company; provided that the termination of the Plan shall not adversely affect any rights under
Awards already granted to a Grantee. Incentive Stock Options may only be granted for ten (10) years from the date that the Plan was last approved by the Board.”
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 

**- 1**  **506**

JUNIO CESAR FREITAS

,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

,

and

DALE BALDWIN

,

Plaintiff

,

v.

TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; UNIFIED CLEANROOM
CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

**No. 13** 

**- 1507** 

DALE BALDWIN

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

JUNIO CESAR FREITAS,

Plaintiff

,

v.

TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; UNIFIED CLEANROOM
CONSTRUCTION, LLC

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan

, District Judge. ( 5 : 12

- c v

- 0 0116

- FL )

Submitted : July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD , Circuit J udges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Junio Cesar Freitas; Dale Baldwin , Appellant s Pro Se. Kevin Joseph Dalton, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kevin Scott Joyner, Kimberly Joyce Lehman, OGLETREE,

DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee s

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Junio Cesar Freitas and Dale Baldwin appeal the district

court’s order dismissing their civil action. On appeal, we

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellants’

briefs. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants ’ informal

briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s

disposition, they have forfeited appellate review of the court's

order. Accordingly, we grant Appellants ' motion s to proceed in

forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019164EN.01001001.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 2 January 2019 — VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie

(Case C-16/19)

(2019/C 164/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VL

Respondent: Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie

Question referred

Should Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that the differing treatment of individual members of a group distinguished by a protected characteristic (disability) amounts to a breach of the principle of equal treatment if the employer treats individual members of that group differently on the basis of an apparently neutral criterion, and that criterion cannot be objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the measures taken in order to achieve that aim are not appropriate and necessary?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (66,224)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,069
<PP&E>                                         103,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                (71,890)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,482)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,251
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,272
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,024)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
#### Kathleen Scott et al., Respondents, v General Motors Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants General Motors Corporation and South Shore Pontiac Company, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated May 21, 1985, as denied their cross motion for an order of preclusion against plaintiffs for their failure to comply with a prior court order directing them to supply further particulars.

Order modified by deleting the provisions denying in its entirety the cross motion for an order of preclusion with respect to items Nos. 7 (b), 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the demand for a bill of particulars and substituting therefor a provision granting so much of appellants’ motion to preclude as pertains to items Nos. 9, 12 and 13 unless plaintiffs serve a further bill of particulars with respect to those items and, in the event that plaintiffs presently lack sufficient knowledge to furnish particulars with respect thereto, they shall state so under oath and shall promptly serve a further supplemental bill of particulars upon appellants if and when the requisite knowledge to answer these items of the demand is acquired. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs to appellants. The plaintiffs’ time to comply with the above requirements is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

In light of the well-settled purpose of a bill of particulars to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial *(see, Bergman v General Motors Corp.,*74 AD2d 886; *Paldino v E. J. Korvettes, Inc.,*65 AD2d 617), we conclude that the responses of plaintiffs to the above-numbered demands are overly broad and conclusory and fail to adequately inform appellants of the alleged defects in the subject automobile *(see, Moore v Chrysler Corp.,*100 AD2d 955). The plaintiffs’ underlying premise is that the transmission on the subject vehicle was defective since said vehicle rolled after it was shifted into park. Said information is so general as to be virtually useless to appellants *(see, Moore v Chrysler Corp., supra; Finkel v Katz,*84 AD2d 730). Accordingly, plaintiffs are *663directed to serve a further bill of particulars with respect to items Nos. 9, 12, and 13 or face preclusion as to those items of the demand.

We have considered the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          35,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,909)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,290
<PP&E>                                         143,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                (73,222)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,084,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          288,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,084,102
<SALES>                                        237,039
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               237,039
<CGS>                                           48,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  400,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (162,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,964
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (177,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (177,995)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)


</TABLE>
# C_2021088EN.01004601.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/46

---

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/19) (1)

(2021/C 88/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---
Exhibit
15.1























CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement No. 333-137598 on Form F-3 and in the Registration
Statement No. 333-128606 on Form F-3 of our report dated May 8, 2009, relating
to the financial statements of Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited and
Management’s annual report on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Nordic
American Tanker Shipping Limited for the year ended December 31,
2008.








/s/
Deloitte AS











Oslo,
Norway


May
8, 2009
%

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DTVISION

UNITED STATES )

)

)

)

)

v.

ANDRE I.{WRENCE

ORDER

Defendant Andrew Lawrence has moved for a reduction in his sentence pursuant

to Section 4o4 of the First Step Act in case number oz CR 2oo-22, requesting the

combined sentence on Counts One and Thirty-Nine of 3oo months'imprisonment being

reduced to a sentence of time served. Lawrence seeks an order directing his immediate

release, pursuant to the First Step Act. (First Step Act of zor8, P.L. rr5-391, S. 4o4, rB2

Stat. 5194). The court having reviewed the record and the parties' memoranda of law, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Defendant's Amended Motion For Reduced Sentence Under Section 4o4 of the

First Step Act in case number 02 CR zoo-zz is GRANTED. Defendant's sentence of z4o

months' imprisonment as to Count One is reduced to time served, pursuant to the First

Step Act. (First Step Act of zor8, P.L. n5-391, S. 4o4, tg2 Stat. 5194). The court further

finds that the reduction in the sentence as to Count One results in the consecutive 6o

month sentence of imprisonment on Count Thirty-Nine as also having been served.

Therefore, the court orders Defendant's immediate release.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: Defendant's term of supervised release is reduced to

a term of B years as to Count One. Defendant's terms of supervised release are further

modified to require residence at a BOP residential reentry center for the first 1zo days of

Defendant's term of supervised release. All of the other terms and conditions of the

previous judgment remain unchanged.

02 CR 2oo-22

Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1877 Filed: 05/10/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7611
REBECCA R. PALLMEYER

United States District Judge

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1877 Filed: 05/10/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:7611