alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Mitchell STUTTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.

No. 11-7273.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Thomas Mitchell Stutts, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Mitchell Stutts seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Stutts’s motion for an extension of time.* This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Stutts seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 It appears that the notice of appeal was incorrectly forwarded to this court as it was directed specifically to the district court judge who presided over the case when the notice of appeal was filed.
COMMENT 

secretary 

From: Karen Reddy [57mreddy@comcast.net] 

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:37 PM 

To: 

Cc: 

secretary 

Karen Reddy 

Subject: "Proposed Rules for Trading Off the Centralized Market" 

To whom it may concern: 

\ 

)~~ ~~r::: J \lf~ LJ 

;:- -r r.., ~ < ~ : .. '-J .. 

·: ,··:--:t·~·~,:: 

j .; ; .. !!_ '·-··i ':_. ; r T ~ :· i. 1 

Page 1 of 1 

I have been involved in futures and options trading since 1979,first as a floor broker and more recently a screen 

trader as that seems to be way the industry has evolved (for better or Worse).Many of the tried and true rules and 

industry standards of open outcry trading such as showing only the best bid and offer and not market depth 

{which was a fineable offence for 135 years} and trading against customer's orders {also fineable} are now 

acceptable and promoted. If that's progress so be it, it's the same for all traders large institutions, funds,banks,and 

Uncle Joe trading his one and two contract pieces from his home. My problem is when two parties can block 

trades with one another without all parties having access. On the former NYBOT this was considered prearranged 

trading and penalized severely. AS I understood the block rule the size of these trades were to be unusually large 

blocks for that given market. If a given market trades 250 lot pieces 2500 lot or more blocks would be acceptable. 

As it stands now the size of these block trades are to small. 

In the past 16 months with the onset of electronic trading on the ICE products {former NYBOT} the volatility has 

increased and in some of the smaller markets volume decreased do to loss of experienced traders losing 

confidence in market trading conditions. Not having the ability to participate under these foolish block volumes will 

knock more traders out of these smaller markets such as OJ and COCOA and COFFEE causing permanent 

damage to the market place. Don't get me wrong I am an ICE share holder and hope they do well, but not at the 

cost of destroying 135 years of exchange due dilligence.Piease give careful consideration to these block rules 

because sometimes the decisions by the new slash and burn show profit at all cost exchanges is not for the good 

of the whole. 

Respectfully, 

Michael W.Reddy 

1117/2008 

Received CFTC 

Records Section 

l;j?jr;(
STAHL YORK AVENUE CO., LLC, petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 15-1467.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Digital Generation Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |    
|------------------------ |  | ---
|Dated: November 19, 2003 |  | By:
|                         |  |    
|                         |  |    
|                         |  |    
|Dated: November 19, 2003 |  | By:
|                         |  |    
|                         |  |
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 55 

DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1954 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DECISIONS 

AT 13 AGRIC. DEC. 1144. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Corn Products Refining Company, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 55 

Stay Order 

On December 23, 1954, the respondent in this proceeding filed a notice of 

appeal and petition for review, in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Second Circuit, of the decision and order entered on December 8, 1954, 

suspending the respondent's trading privileges on contract markets for one day, 

effective January 7, 1955. In view of the filing of the notice of appeal and 

petition for review, the order of December 8, 1954, is stayed pending the 

outcome of the appeal. 

A copy hereof shall be served upon the parties and upon each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 28 day of December, 1954. 

/s/ Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2008 
Page 2
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO 
 SUPPLY AGREEMENT

 This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment No. 1”) to that certain supply agreement between Intersect
ENT, Inc., a Delaware corporation having offices at 1555 Adams Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025, and AIM Plastics, Inc. a Michigan corporation having offices at 22264 Starks Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036 (“the
Agreement”), with an effective date of January 16, 2015 is made as of February 22, 2016 (the “Amendment No. 1 Effective Date”). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment
No. 1 have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with this Amendment No. 1. 

NOW, THEREFORE, Customer and Supplier hereby agree as follows: 

1. EXHIBIT A “PRODUCTS/PRICE LIST” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

 

									
	 Part number and Description
	  	Price per Unit
2016	 	 	2016 Annual
Forecast	 
	 [*]
	  	 	[	*] 	 	 	[	*] 

 [*] 
 2. Governing
Law. Any claim, dispute, or controversy of whatever nature arising out of or relating to this Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice of law
principles that would require the application of the laws of a different state or country. 
 3. Continued Effectiveness of the Agreement.
Except as set forth in this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of the Agreement are not amended or modified in any way and continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms and conditions. 

4. Amendment. This Amendment No. 1 may be amended only upon the written consent of the parties hereto. 

5. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all of
which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Any signature page delivered electronically or by facsimile (including, without limitation, transmission by .pdf or other fixed image form) will be binding to the same extent as an original
signature page. 

  
 - 1 - 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
duly executed this Amendment No. 1 on the Amendment No. 1 Effective Date. 
  

									
	INTERSECT ENT, INC.	 		 	AIM PLASTICS, INC.
	By:	 	  
 




	 		 	By:	 	  
 





	Name:	 	



	 		 	Name:	 	




	Title:	 	



	 		 	Title:	 	






  
 - 2 - 

[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Victoria McGee HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6096.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidate Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statement of Operations as reported
on the third quarter Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000850436
<NAME>                        Medical Manager Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          90,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4,826)
<INVENTORY>                                     20,041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,549
<PP&E>                                         129,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,061,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,495
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              459
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     756,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,061,906
<SALES>                                        260,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,808
<CGS>                                          133,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,136
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,742
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,606)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)




</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: I. USISKIN & COMPANY, INC., HOWARD S. FISHER, I. USISKIN & COMPANY, 

ISADORE USISKIN, AND SIDNEY FASHENA 

DOCKET NUMBER: 101 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 101 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

I. Usiskin & Company, Inc. 

Howard S. Fisher 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

I. Usiskin & Company 

Isadore Usiskin 

Sidney Fashena 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges the respondents with improper handling of customers' 

funds, alleging that they failed to treat customers' funds as belonging to such 

customers, failed to keep such funds separate from those of the firm, and used 

the funds of certain customers to margin and guarantee the trades of other 

customers. It also alleges that the respondents failed to maintain records 

required under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, October 10, 1961, in Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DENNIS RENE LANZA-B ANEGAS, AKA Franc isc o He rnande z -Gom e z , AKA R e n e Lam z a , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70777 Age n c y No. A205-315-304 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Fe brua ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. De nnis R e ne e La

nz a -B ane ga s, a

native and c itiz e n

of Hondura s, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r granting him pre -c onc l usion volunta

ry 

# FIL ED FEB 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de pa

rture . W e dism iss thepe tition for re vie w. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w La nz a -B ane ga s’ une xha

u ste d c o nte ntion tha

t his wa ive r of a

ppe a l be fore the IJ wa s not knowing a nd inte llige nt. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to re vie w le ga l c la im s not pre se nte d in thepe titione r’ s a dm inistra t ive proc e e dings be fore the B IA). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

1 3 - 7 0 7 7 7 2
Albert HARRIOTT, petitioner, v. Michael SHEAHAN, Superintendent, Five Points Correctional Facility.

No. 16-6031.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4



 


[*] INDICATES CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION







ADDENDUM TO THE NIAGEN(TM) SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN


5LINX ENTERPRISES, INC. AND CHROMADEX, INC.







This Addendum (the “Addendum”) dated June 26, 2014 (“Addendum Effective Date”), is attached to and forms part of the NIAGEN SUPPLY AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated January 3, 2014 made by and between ChromaDex, Inc., a California corporation, having a principal place of business at 10005 Muirlands Blvd, Suite G, Irvine, CA 92618 (“Seller”) and 5Linx Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with principal offices located at 275 Kenneth Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 (“Buyer”).  To the extent that any of the terms or conditions contained in this Addendum may contradict or conflict with any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement, it is expressly understood and agreed that the terms of this Addendum shall take precedence and supersede the Agreement.







RECITALS







WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein;







NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







1.           Exclusivity.   Buyer shall be granted exclusivity in the Territory (as defined in the Agreement) for Energy Shots industry wide until August 31, 2015.  “Energy Shots” are herein defined as dietary supplements sold in a single serving asserting structure/function claims relating to energy.







2.           Price for Exclusivity.  As payment for Exclusivity in the Territory for Energy Shots, from Addendum Effective Date through August 31, 2015, Buyer agrees to take or pay two million dollars ($2,000,000) of the six million dollars ($6,000,000) required to be purchased in Year 2 under the Agreement.








	
3.

	
All other terms and conditions of the NIAGEN SUPPLY AGREEMENT remain the same.












4.           This Addendum may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Facsimile, Portable Document Format (PDF) or photocopied signatures of the Parties will have the same legal validity as original signatures.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum by their duly authorized representatives for good and valuable consideration.


 




	
CHROMADEX, INC.  


 


By: /s/ Troy Rhonemus  


Name: Troy Rhonemus   


Title: COO   


Date: 6/26/2014

	 	
ELYSIUM HEALTH, INC.


 


By: /s/ William Faucette, Jr.


Name: William Faucette, Jr.


Title: VP North American Sales


Date: 6/16/2016
EXHIBIT 23



<PAGE>



                                      JSDC
                            JOHN S. DOWLING & COMPANY
                  A CORPORATION OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                              Interestate-49 South
                                  P.O. Box 433
                           Opelousas, Louisiana 70571




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
St. Landry Financial Corporation
459 East Landry Street
Opelousas, Louisiana 70570

Members of the Board:

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File Nos.  333-4007 and 333-4009) of St. Landry Financial
Corporation (the "Company") of our report on the financial  statements  included
in the Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  September 30,
1997 filed pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

/s/ John S. Dowling & Company

Opelousas, Louisiana
December 24, 1997
Nos. 175 and 176.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*Peterson.

October 14, 1935.

*Solicitor General Reed*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Oscar Mitchell, James G. Nye, Homer Hendricks, Robert N. Miller,*and *C. J. McGuire*for respondent.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beverly JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51189

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bertram Oliver Wood, III, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Beverly Johnson in his appeal from the order revoking Johnson’s supervised release has filed a motion and a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Johnson has not filed a response to his counsel’s motion.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. *See*
      *361
      *Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole — some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction — must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” *Id.*

Johnson has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Johnson’s supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.