alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1109.

#### Wheeler *v.*Albany & Northern Railway Co.

Powell, J.

In an action against a railway company for negligently communicating fire through sparks from a passing engine to adjacent property, the defendant admitted that the fire was communicated by the engine named, but offered proof that the engine was equipped with a first-class standard spark-arrester; also the’ testimony of the engineer that at the time in question it was being operated in the usual and *440ordinary manner, and that no more sparks were emitted than were necessary in the running of the train; the plaintiff submitted proof that this same engine also communicated two other fires, to adjacent property, on the same day, and that as it passed the plaintiff’s premises it was “puffing and blowing” more than usual: *Held,*that while the plaintiff’s case was very weak, nevertheless, under the testimony, .the facts proved and the inferences to be drawn therefrom were not so entirely free from issue as to justify the court in directing a verdict for the defendant. *Judgment reversed.*

Action for damages, from city court of Cordele — Judge Henderson presiding. March. 12, 1908.

Argued June 10,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*Crum & Jones,*for plaintiff.

*J. T. Hill, Maynard & Hooper,*for defendant.
Jorge CHAVEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7443.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Brian P. ZATER, petitioner, v. Jorge PASTRANA, Warden.

No. 17-7821.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BARRY LANGAN,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 367 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.5.1
The confidential portions of this exhibit have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a confidential treatment request in accordance with Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  REDACTED PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT ARE MARKED BY AN ***.



THIRD AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to the April 27, 2012 Supply Agreement (the “Third Amendment”) is made as of January 1, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware limited liability company with offices at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern, PA 19355 (“ENDO”) and Noramco, Inc. a Georgia corporation having a principal place of business at 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, DE 19801, USA (“Noramco”) hereinafter collectively and/or individually (Parties and/or Party).
WHEREAS:
(A)The Parties hereto entered into a Supply Agreement dated April 27, 2012 (the “Agreement”), and amended the Agreement on December 12, 2013 (the “First Amendment), and on April 29, 2015 (the, “Second Amendment”), and the Parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.
NOW THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.
2.For ***, in excess of the agreed volume maximum and beginning ***, purchases by Endo and Affiliates are not included in the Agreement and shall be based on availability.  Price shall be determined for each request.
3.Prices for the Agreement as of the above Effective Date of this Amendment are attached.
4.Save as otherwise expressly referred to in this Amendment the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall apply in all other respects and remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,·the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to












execute this Third Amendment in duplicate counterparts.
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
	
		
	By:
	/s/Rajiv De Silva

	Name:
	Rajiv De Silva

	Title:
	President and Chief Executive Officer

	Date:
	8/17/2015




NORAMCO, INC.
	
		
	By:
	/s/John Giannone

	Name:
	John Giannone

	Title:
	Director of US Sales

	Date:
	7/27/2015













Attachment
***
SHARON KELLER

PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

JUDGES 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING

, 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET

, R OOM 106, A USTIN

, T EXAS 78701

W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA

. ASPX Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Re: PERAZA, OSMIN

CCA No. PD-0100-15 COA No. 01-12-00690-CR

Trial Court Case No. 1305438

On this day, the State’s petition for discretionary review has been granted. The Court has

ordered that the State’s brief be filed with this Court within 15 days

. The appellant’s brief is due

15 days after the filing of the State’s brief. No extensions of time will be entertained.

Sincerely,

_____________________________ Abel Acosta, Clerk
Michael NORDYKE, petitioner, v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP.

No. 17-972.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Ramos SANDERS, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16-9477.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District denied.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
 Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a list of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978. *2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health*
                    —(OMB Number 0930-0110, Revision)—The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) [formerly the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA)] is a survey of the civilian, 
                    ( print page 34710)
                    noninstitutionalized population of the United States 12 years old and older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, ONDCP, Federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources. For the 2002 NSDUH, the modular components of the questionnaire will remain essentially unchanged except for minor modifications to wording. As with all NSDUH surveys conducted since 1999, the sample size of the survey for 2002 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. The total annual burden estimate is 85,400 hours as shown below: Number of respondents
Responses/respondent
Average burden response (hrs.)
Total burden hoursHousehold Screening
202,500
1
0.083
16,808NHSDA Interview
67,500
1
1.000
67,500Screening Verification
6,176
1
0.067
414Interview Verification
10,125
1
0.067
678Total



85,400
 Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Lauren Wittenberg, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: June 14, 2001. Richard Kopanda, Executive Officer, SAMHSA.


[FR Doc. 01-16394 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
Gerod STUKES, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, et al.

No. 17-5989.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Exhibit 13(a).1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ended December 31, 2006, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F/A) I, Peter Yip, chief executive officer of the Company,
certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F/A 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 Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 30, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Peter Yip          
|Peter Yip              
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be retained by CDC Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2009256EN.01002702.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/27

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — EFIM v Commission

(Case T-296/09)

2009/C 256/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM. In that decision, the Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint, in which it claimed various infringements of Articles 81 and 82 EC by several manufactures of ink-jet printers on their markets for ink-cartridges.

In the reasoning for its action, the applicant claims, first, that the Commission did not take into account a large number of important elements of fact and, in so doing, infringed the principle of sound administration, the duty of care, the obligation to state reasons and the right to a fair hearing. Moreover, the applicant contends that the assessments made by the defendant in the contested decision, in particular with regard to the criteria for priority in treatment of the appeal procedure, are obviously incorrect and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Finally, it is submitted that an effective protection of competition, against the restrictions alleged by the applicant, can only be safeguarded by the defendant, because the national Competition Authorities and the Courts only have limited territorial jurisdiction.

---
II-00369

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Susan Singh <sukising@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:40 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Susan Singh

1762 E 60th St

Tulsa, OK 74105
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of First Community Financial Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-79231) of our
report dated February 17, 2000, on our audits of consolidated financial
statements of First Community Financial Corporation as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999,
which report has been included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.




                                      By:   /s/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                           -------------------------------

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina

March 27, 2000
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 4, 2017

a0327

Order 

Clerk

April 4, 2017

153679

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153679

COA: 319298

Wayne CC: 12-009385-FC

BRANDON HAROLD CRAWFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
SOUTH CAROLINA, petitioner, v. Antonio MILLER.

No. 16-231.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
Exhibit 8



|                                             |  |                              |  |                                               
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Entity Name                                  |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | Name Under WhichBusiness is Done(if
different)
|Hongkong.com Corporation                     |  | Cayman Islands               |  | China.com Inc.                                
|                                             |  |                             
|Cayman First Tier                            |  | Cayman Islands               |  |                                              
|                                             |  |                             
|Industri-Matematik International Corporation |  | Delaware                     |  |                                              
|                                             |  |                             
|Industri-Matematik AB                        |  | Sweden                       |  |                                              
|                                             |  |                             
|Pivotal Corporation                          |  | British Columbia             |  |                                              
|                                             |  |                             
|CDC Software Acquisitionco II SRL            |  | Barbados                     |  |                                              
|                                             |  |                             
|Ross Systems, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                     |  |                                              
|                                             |  |                             
|Saratoga Systems, Inc.                       |  | California                   |  | 
Judith L. ARNOLD, petitioner, v. Jerry K. ASHWORTH.

No. 16-9468.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arkansas denied.
II-00490

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Matthew Franck <cnj matt@optonline.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:06 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Matthew Franck

119 Livingston Ave Apt 5G

New Brtmswick, NJ 8901
Samuel Savala CISNEROS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Mario Vaughan WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-9263.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
# C_2009069EN.01004901.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/49

---

Action brought on 20 January 2009 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face)

(Case T-22/09)

(2009/C 69/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by T. Schmitz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1299/2006-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1299/2006-4;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark, showing a chocolate panda face, for goods in Class 30 — Application No 4 505 161

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), as the registered mark has the necessary distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
John Joseph BRAVATA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9456.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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