alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

               CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Frisby Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Gregory
S. Frisby, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of
              operations of the Company.



/s/ Gregory S. Frisby
----------------------------------------
Gregory S. Frisby
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133310 & (56) (57) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133310 COA: 265049 Oakland CC: 2003-188878-FC FRANK VELIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.

s0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

               CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Frisby Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I John L.
Ruggiero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of
              operations of the Company.



/s/ John L. Ruggiero
---------------------------------------
John L. Ruggiero
Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
August 14, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MLEA, INC. etc. : CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

 : NO. 02-4393

ATLANTIC RECYCLED RUBBER INC., :

et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 28TH day of July, 2005,

it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled

and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure of this Court , it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Marion Scarengelli 

 Deputy Clerk

Civ 2 (8/2000)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 50 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<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>                                          17,732
<SECURITIES>                                     3,650
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (599)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,989
<PP&E>                                           3,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,204
<SALES>                                         34,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,290
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (6)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,011
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
No. 62501.

#### William A. Hoffman, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 322496-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of of prosecution.
(C. D. 198)

#### Dr. Kurt Bardach *v.*United States

United States Customs Court, Second Division

(Decided August 7, 1939)

*Siegel & Mandell (Joshua M: Davidson*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Webster J. Oliver,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Before Tilson, Kincheloe, and Dallinger, Judges

Dallinger, Judge:

This is a suit against the United States, arising at the port of New York, brought to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted on a particular importation described in the appraisement entry as “electric motor.” Duty was levied thereon at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the *eo nomine*provision therefor in paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It is claimed that said article is properly entitled to free entry under paragraph 1747 of said act, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

> Par. 1747. Professional books, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or employment in the actual possession of persons emigrating to the United States owned and used by them abroad * * *.

An illustration of the merchandise in question was admitted in evidence as Illustrative Exhibit 1.

The plaintiff, Dr. Kurt Bardach, appeared in person and testified that he arrived in the United States in June 1937 from Dusseldorf, Germany, with his household effects, including one alleged electric motor; that said article is not an electric motor but a converter, used to convert from alternating into direct electric current; that he was a specialist in dermatology; that in connection with his practice it was necessary for him to have this converter for the purpose of converting *39the alternating electric current in Flushing, where he is now located, into a direct current; that he had been using the said converter in his practice for about 2 years abroad and ever since; that' he had no intention of selling the converter in question; and that its use was absolutely essential as part of Ms professional equipment.

On cross-examination he testified that the converter in question would not convert a direct current into an alternating current; and that he was licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York.'

On redirect examination he testified that he would not be able to use some of the instruments of Ms practice without the use of the converter.

Upon tMs record we hold as a matter of law that the electric converter constitutmg the merchandise at bar is properly entitled to free • entry under said paragraph 1747 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as an instrument or tool of trade, occupation, or employment M the actual possession of a person emigratmg to the UMted States and owned and used by Mm abroad. ’ That claim is therefore sustahied; but as to all other merchandise the claims are overruled. Judgment will be. rendered accordingly.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Ap ril 18, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00181

- CV

THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY

- FIVE DOLLARS ($3,445.00) UNITED STATES CURRENCY

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 08281 H onorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant Jason W. Harrell a/k/a Jason Borg , an inmate acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal with this court on March 21, 2016 . Appellant’s notice of appeal states he is currently incarcerated, and it shows his return address as the Fabian Dominguez State Jail facility in San Antonio, Texas

. In his letter filed on April 13, 2016, Appellant asserts he is indigent and cannot pay costs of court.
Because Appellant is an inmate and asserts he cannot pay c osts, Appellant must file in this court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order (1) a separate affidavit listing the previous pro se actions he has brought and (2) a certified copy of his inmate trust account

statement. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 14.002(a) (West Supp. 201 5 ) (applying affidavit and other requirements to inmate appeals effective January 1, 2012); id. § 14.004 (requiring a pro se inmate asserting inability to pay costs to file a detailed list of previous pro se actions and a certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement).
Appellant’s affidavit and certified statement must be timely filed and must meet the applicable statutory requirements. E.g.
, id. § 14.004(a) (affidavit of actions); id. § 14.004(b) (dispositions); id. § 14.004(c) (account statement).We warn Appellant that this court may dismiss th is appeal without further notice if

Appellant fails to timely file the statutorily required documents. C f. Douglas v. Moffett , 418 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (dismissing an appeal where an inmate failed to comply with Chapter 14 requirements); Amir

- Sharif v. Mason , 243 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, no pet.) (recognizing that a trial court may dismiss an indigent inmate’s suit withou t notice or hearing for failing to file the previous actions affidavit).
All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
# C_2017038EN.01001101.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC v Enedis, SA

(Case C-584/16)

(2017/C 038/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC

Applicant:

Defendant: Enedis, SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?

| 2. | If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 18, 2006

d1018 

# Order

October 18, 2006

132216 & (21)

CAPITOL CITY LODGE NO. 141 OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, and LARRY HARRISON,, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 132216 COA: 272202 Ingham CC: 06-000759-CL INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and INGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Septem ber 22, 2006 or der of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be revi ewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would remand this case to the Cour t of Appeals for an explanation of
its order.
## Cement Manufacturing Process Flow Diagram Sites Controlled by Others

Processing Raw Materials Raw Material Loading

Wastewater

Treatment Sludge Storage 

## B Processing Raw Materials

- Primary and Secondary Crushing

- Screening

- - Raw mill feed belt

- - Raw mill weigh hopper

- - Raw mill air separator

Wastewater

Treatment

Sludge Unloading

415,000 kg/year 

## A C Raw Material Preparation (Proportioning and Grinding) 

## D Slurry Mixing and Blending



## E Rotary Kiln



## F

Clinker Cooler


## G

Clinker Storage 

## H

Finish Grinding Mill 

## J

Product Storage


## K

Shipment


## L Air Separator


## I Gypsum 

## 1

Raw Materials 330,000 kg/hr or 2,300,000,000 kg/year (estimated) 0.05 kg/day

Baghouse

5.4 kg/day
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JACQUELINE DRINKS : CIVIL ACTION

vs. :

LOCKHEAD MARTIN CORPORATION : NO. 02-4352

MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2003, it having been

reported that the issues between PLAINTIFF JACQUELINE DRINKS and

DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS

have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of

this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs, as to the above

named parties only.

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT:

BY: 

 Rosalind Burton-Hoop JOHN P. FULLAM, Sr. J.

 Deputy Clerk

COPIES BY MAIL ON 10/21/03 TO: Arthur B. Jarrett, Esq.

 Jonathan J. James, Esq.

 Walter D. Schirrmacher, Esq.

 Sidney L. Gold, Esq.

Civ 12 (7/95)

Case 2:02-cv-04352-JF Document 11 Filed 10/21/2003 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>         0001051488
<NAME>        FIRST DELTAVISION, INC.
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            26229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      (26464)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (5737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5737)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Daniel R. Kadolph, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Midwest BancHoldings, Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely effect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004 /s/ Daniel R. KadolphDaniel R. KadolphSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 50375.

#### Protest 114179-K/105 of J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.