alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7257
EFRAIN N. CIRINEO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VANESSA P. ADAMS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-05-385-2) Submitted: December 19, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Efrain N. Cirineo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Cirineo may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion on the basis of the rules announced in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), such a motion should be filed in the circuit in which he was sentenced. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Efrain N. Cirineo, a federal prisoner, appealsthe district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeCirineo v. Adams , No. CA-05-385-2 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2005). 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. *

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,016
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      181
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,310
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              147
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,384
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   224
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     39
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 25
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        25
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
# C_2011229EN.01001001.xml

| 4.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/10

---

Notice from the Government of Malta concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 229/06

In accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the Minister for Resources and Rural Affairs of Malta invites applications for the following areas/blocks in offshore Malta under either an exploration licence or an exploration and production licence:

| (i) | area 1 |
| --- | --- |

(i)

area 1

| (ii) | blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of area 3 |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of area 3

| (iii) | blocks 1, 2 and 3 of area 4 |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

blocks 1, 2 and 3 of area 4

| (iv) | area 5 |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

area 5

| (v) | area 6 |
| --- | --- |

(v)

area 6

The following areas/blocks are already under an authorisation and are not available until further notification:

| (i) | area 2 |
| --- | --- |

(i)

area 2

| (ii) | blocks 4, 5, 6 and 7 of area 4 |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

blocks 4, 5, 6 and 7 of area 4

| (iii) | area 7 |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

area 7

Applications should be clearly marked ‘2011 Malta Offshore Licensing Round’ and should be sent in a sealed envelope addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Malta Resources Authority, Millennia 2nd Floor, Aldo Moro Road, Marsa MRS 9065, Malta. Applications must be received by not later than noon local time of 1 December 2011. The receipt of an application will not create an obligation on the part of the Government of Malta to grant an authorisation in respect of part or all of the area that is the subject of the application.

Applicants shall provide the information requested in the form published in the Petroleum (Production) Regulations, 2001 (Legal Notice 320 of 2001, 1 December 2001).

The areas/blocks available for authorisation, as well as the areas/blocks already under an authorisation, are delimited by geographical coordinates that may be obtained, together with other information, by contacting the Chief Executive Officer, Malta Resources Authority at the abovementioned address or at ceo@mra.org.mt

It is notified that the Notice of 21 January 2005 (2005/C 62/06) from the Government of Malta concerning the abovementioned Directive and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 March 2005 is hereby being repealed.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
#### STATE v. FERGUSON

No. 155.

Reported: 280 N.C. 95.

Petition by Ferguson to rehear denied 31 January 1972.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

June 25, 2009 Session

COREY GREENE, ET AL. v. YASEEN TITI 

d/b/a CRUSH NIGHT CLUB, ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 06C118 Thomas Brothers, Judge

No. M2008-02788-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 11, 2010

JUDGE D. MICHAEL SWINEY, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the judgment of the Trial Court

granting summary judgment to Tennessee Protection Agency (“T.P.A.”). I, however, do not

concur with the majority’s determination that the T.P.A. owed no duty to the Plaintiff other

than to refrain from gross negligence or willful misconduct.

For purposes of its motion for summary judgment before the Trial Court,

T.P.A. assumed that it owed a duty of care to Plaintiff. The Trial Court granted T.P.A.’s

motion for summary judgment upon its determination that T.P.A. had shown that it did not

breach any duty of care owed to Plaintiff. Having successfully done this, T.P.A. had satisfied

its burden of production by “affirmatively negate[ing] an essential element of [Plaintiff’s]

claim....” Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2008). The burden then

shifted to Plaintiff “to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists.” Id. Plaintiff failed

to meet this burden.

I agree with the Trial Court’s determination that T.P.A. successfully negated

an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim by showing no breach of any duty of care owed by

T.P.A. to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff thereafter failed to create a genuine issue of material fact.

I would affirm the Trial Court’s decision on that basis and that basis alone.

_________________________________

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7399

CHARLES MANSEL THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, P.C.I.; STAN BURKE,

Deputy Warden, P.C.I,; UNKNOWN MALE OFFICERS

OF 1ST, 2ND, AND 3RD SHIFTS, P.C.I.; UNKNOWN

FEMALE SECRETARY TO STAN BURKE, P.C.I.; SERGEANT BROWN, 1st Shift Assistant Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-95-1109-23BD)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Mansel Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith Wray, II,

GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Thomas v. Witkowski, No.

CA-95-1109-23BD (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 1996). We deny the motion for oral

argument and 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.

AFFIRMED
Exihibit 10.1


 


 





AMENDMENT


 


TO


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Employment
Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of April 8, 2020, by and among GL Brands, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”) and Carlos Frias (the “Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of May 31, 2019, and amended November 18, 2019 (the
“Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to now amend certain of the terms of the Employee Agreement on the terms set forth herein; and


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
Company and the Employee hereby agree as follows:


 


1.              
Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.


 


2.              
Amendment. The Agreement is hereby amended to reduce the Base Salary from $200,000 to $150,000.


 


3.              
Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


4.              
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State
of Texas, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law.


 


5.              
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.


 


 


 


[Signature
page follows]


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.


 





	 	 


THE COMPANY:


 


GL Brands, Inc.


 


By: /s/ Carlos Frias

       Name: Carlos Frias

       Title: CEO


 


THE EMPLOYEE:


 


Carlos Frias


 


By: /s/ Carlos Frias

       Individually






 


 


 


 





[Signature Page to Amendment to Employment
Agreement]


 






    	 	2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-CR-17-SPM/WCS

KARLOS ELEBY,

 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 20) of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of

the Defendant, KARLOS ELEBY, to Count One of the Indictment is hereby

ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this eighteenth day of November, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 62665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets of commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowship Applications Review.
    Date: December 4, 2007.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Lorraine Gunzerath, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
Office of Extramural Activities, Extramural Project Review Branch, 
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3043, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, 301-443-2369, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#236a44564d59465142634e424a4f0d4d4a4b0d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94ddf3e1faeef1e6f5d4f9f5fdf8bafafdfcbaf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 30, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5538 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PATRICK CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:09cv568/LAC

KCS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and

THE SHIPS CHANDLER MARINE

SALES OF DESTIN, INC.,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

THIS CAUSE comes before on Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (doc. 5), this case

having been removed by Defendant KCS International, Inc., (KCS) on December 23, 2009. 

Defendant has responded to the motion, conceding that this action should be remanded

because Co-Defendant The Ships Chandler Marine Sales of Destin, Inc., (Ships Chandler)

did not consent to removal.

Plaintiff also seeks attorneyfees, which KCS opposes. KCS acknowledgesPlaintiff’s

assertion that, in and around the time of removal, Ships Chandler had indicated that it would

not consent to removal. However, KCS also states that counsel for Ships Chandler had also

represented that it was seeking legal representation from its insurer – which ultimately the
insurer would decline. KCS’s made efforts at the time to reach the insurer in order to learn

of its position on removal in the event the insurer should it elect to represent Ships Chandler,

but failed. Under these circumstances, KCS contends that it was appropriate to file the

notice of removal in order to preserve its rights to do so under the pending removal deadline.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a court may award attorneys' fees upon remand if it is

determined that the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal and

thereby appeared to have removed the case simply for delay or to impose costs on the

opposing party. See Hansard v. Forsyth County, 191 Fed.Appx. 844, 846-847 (11th Cir.

2006). Here, the Court finds that Defendant KCS’s actions, taken to preserve its rights as

they existed at the time of removal, were reasonably based. 

The Court's ruling in this matter may therefore be summarized as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (doc. 5) is GRANTED to the extent that this

case shall be remanded but is denied to the extent it seeks attorneys’ fees.

2. The above entitled action is REMANDED to the First Judicial Circuit Court

in and for Okaloosa County, Florida.

3. The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of the

First Judicial Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County, Florida.

ORDERED on this 28th day of January, 2010.

s/L.A. Collier

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge
Exhibit
4.3


 


DESCRIPTION
OF SECURITIES


 


The
following description of certain terms of AgeX Therapeutics, Inc. (“AgeX”) common stock is a summary and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to AgeX’s certificate of incorporation and bylaw and by the Delaware General Corporation Law.



 


Common
Stock


 


The
AgeX Certificate of Incorporation currently authorizes the issuance of up to 100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001
per share. Each holder of record of common stock is entitled to one vote for each outstanding share owned, on every matter properly
submitted to the stockholders for their vote, including election or removal of directors elected by AgeX stockholders generally.
The holders of AgeX common stock do not have cumulative voting rights in the election of directors.


 


Subject
to the dividend rights of holders of any of the preferred stock that may be issued from time to time, holders of common stock
are entitled to any dividend declared by the AgeX Board of Directors out of funds legally available for that purpose.


 


Subject
to the prior payment of the liquidation preference to holders of any preferred stock that may be issued from time to time, holders
of common stock are entitled to receive on a pro rata basis all remaining assets available for distribution to the holders of
common stock in the event of the liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of AgeX’s operations.


 


Holders
of AgeX common stock do not have preemptive, subscription, redemption or conversion rights. There will be no redemption or sinking
fund provisions applicable to the common stock. The rights, powers, preferences and privileges of holders of our common stock
will be subject to those of the holders of any shares of our preferred stock we may authorize and issue in the future.
Exhibit 10.18


 



Merisant Company 2 SARL


Avenue Jean-Jacques Rousseau 7


2000 Neuchatel


Switzerland


 


July 23, 2019


 


Albert Manzone


Dorfstrasse 3


Ch-8802 Kilchberg


 


Dear Albert:


 


I write to memorialize changes to your offer
letter dated January 25, 2016 (“Offer Letter”), which was amended on July 1, 2017 (“Amendment”), in a November
4, 2018 letter (“2018 Amendment Letter”) and in a June 10, 2019 letter (“3rd Amendment”). This
amendment dated July 23, 2019 (“4th Amendment”) will become effective on August 1, 2019, and except as otherwise
provided herein, the terms of the Offer Letter, Amendment, 2018 Amendment Letter, and the 3rd Amendment will remain
in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Offer Letter, the
Amendment, or the 3rd Amendment as applicable (if, in the event of a conflict, the meaning set forth in the Offer Letter
shall govern).


 


The change in the above-referenced documents is as follows:


 


		1)	Effective August 1, 2019, section (1) of the 3rd Amendment, which replaced the first paragraph of Exhibit B to the
Amendment, is hereby struck in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 


Flavors Holdings Inc. (the “Company”)
would like to reward your continued future service as an employee, officer or director of the Company, the Employer, or any subsidiary
or affiliate thereof (collectively “Employee”), by granting you the right to earn a one-time bonus payable in
connection with a future Company Sale. Specifically, if you continue to remain an Employee through the closing date of the Company
Sale, the Employer or a subsidiary shall pay you a one-time cash bonus equal to $2,000,000 (the “Transaction Bonus”)
on or within five days following the closing date of such Company Sale. Notwithstanding the foregoing if a Company Sale is not
consummated on or prior to December 31, 2020, then this Exhibit B letter agreement (the “Agreement”) shall terminate
without any payment of the Transaction Bonus. For the avoidance of doubt, you shall only be entitled to the Transaction Bonus on
the first occurrence of a Company Sale and not on any subsequent Company Sale. If you are still employed and in good standing and
have not given notice of your resignation of employment, you shall be paid a one-time retention bonus of $500,000 on June 30, 2020
(the “Retention Bonus”) provided that the amount of the Retention Bonus paid, if any, shall reduce dollar for
dollar the amount of the Transaction Bonus. For the avoidance of doubt, this Retention Bonus and Transaction Bonus obligation does
not transfer to the buyer in the event of a Company Sale.


  






     


     


    

 


We look forward to continuing our mutually beneficial relationship.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Paul G. Savas
	 	 
	 	Paul G. Savas




 


Please indicate your acceptance of this 3rd Amendment
by signing in the space below and returning a signed original amendment to me.


 


	Accepted:	/s/ Albert Manzone	 	Date:	07.25.2019
	 	Albert Manzone