alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leadbetter and others vs. Laird and others.

Appeal to Supbeme Coubt. *(1) Time to appeal from order not extended by subsequent amendment. (2) An amending order held immaterial and unappealable.*

1. If an order be amended after notice thereof to the adverse party, this does not extend his time for appealing from the original order; though he may appeal from the amending order within thirty days from notice thereof.

2. Where a complaint was amended before answer or demurrer, by making new parties, an order overruling a subsequent demurrer properly described it as a demurrer to the *amended*complaint; but afterwards the order was amended by striking out the word “ amended.” *Held,*that the second order was immaterial and unappealable.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Grant*County.

The defendants appealed from an order overruling their demurrer to the complaint. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

For the appellants, there was a brief by *Bushnell da Clarh,*and oral argument by *Mr. Bushnell.*

For the respondents, there was a brief by *Bwrber do Olem-entson,*and oral argument by *Mr. Olementson.*

NtaN, C. J.

This appeal from an order overruling a demurrer must be dismissed, -because it was not taken within thirty days after notice of the order.

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that, because the order was subsequently amended, and the appeal is from the amended order, the dime for taking the appeal should not begin to run until notice of the order as amended. The court is unable to adopt his view.

The time for appealing from every appealable order begins to run from notice of that order. If such an order be amended by a subsequent order, the latter may be appealable, but it cannot extend the time for appeal from the former. That is determined absolutely by the notice.

In the present ease, when the demurrer was taken, there was one complaint only. After it had been served on the appel*523lants, and before they had demurred, it was amended by adding new parties. Strictly speaking, therefore, it was an amended complaint; and the order accordingly overruled the demurrer to the amended complaint. Afterwards another order was made striking out the word *amended*from the first order; so as topnake it overrule the demurrer to the complaint. The alteration was quite immaterial. Of the two, perhaps the first was the more correct in form; but both are the same in substance and effect.

If, therefore, the appeal could be taken as from the second order, it should be dismissed because that order is immaterial and unappealable. If it is to be taken'as from the first order, which is material and appealable, it was taken out of time.

*By the Gourt.*— Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32

                          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 Accessory Specialists Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Anthony  N  DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer  of  the  Company,
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.



                              /s/ Anthony N. DeMint
                              Anthony n. DeMint
                              President and Chief Accounting Officer
                              August 4, 2003
# C_2015089EN.01000101.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 089/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 81, 9.3.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 73, 2.3.2015

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015

OJ C 56, 16.2.2015

OJ C 46, 9.2.2015

OJ C 34, 2.2.2015

OJ C 26, 26.1.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated April 20, 2007 by and among MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Buyer”), PARIVID, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company (the “Seller”) and S. RAGURAM, an individual (“Primary Member”) is entered into as of July 18, 2011.

 

Capitalized terms used in this Agreement and not defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

 

In consideration of the representations, warranties and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.

 

1.             M-Enoxaparin Milestone Payment.  The parties hereby agree that, within 10 days after the occurrence of the M-Enoxaparin Milestone, in lieu of the issuance of shares of Buyer Common Stock in satisfaction of the M-Enoxaparin Milestone as set forth in Section 1.4(b) of the Agreement, Buyer will pay the Seller, by wire transfer to an account designated by the Seller, an amount equal to 332,094 times the average of the ten highest last reported sale prices per share of the Buyer Common Stock over the fifteen consecutive trading days ending one day prior to the date of the M-Enoxaparin Milestone.

 

2.             Effect of Amendment.  Except as explicitly set forth in this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 

	
 
    	
MOMENTA   PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Craig A. Wheeler
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Craig A. Wheeler
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
PARIVID,   LLC
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   S. Raguram
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   S. Raguram
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
PRIMARY   MEMBER
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   S. Raguram
    
	
 
    	
S.   Raguram
# C_2016023EN.01000101.xml

| 22.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7671 — KKR/FIBA/WMF)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 23/01)

On 17 September 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7671. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7671. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 10.11









EXHIBIT 10.11




Description of Director Compensation



Effective July 1, 2011, non-employee directors of the Company receive $12,500 per fiscal quarter in
compensation for service as director, plus $1,250 per board and committee meeting attended, except
the Chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee each
receive $13,750 per fiscal quarter and $1,250 per board and committee meeting attended.
Non-employee directors may elect to defer the receipt of meeting and/or director fees in accordance
with the terms of the Company’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. In addition, non-employee
directors may from time to time be granted restricted stock units pursuant to the provisions of the
Genuine Parts Company 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan. The compensation of directors may be changed
from time to time by the Board of Directors without stockholder approval.
# C_2015220EN.01001101.xml

| 4.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 July 2015

(2015/C 220/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1096 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4607 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71020 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3726 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0466 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8500 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,145 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,48 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1955 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4832 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9873 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4747 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3961 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6021 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6581 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4953 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 246,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6359 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8856 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5970 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 792,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1937 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,988 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 61,8765 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,482 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4584 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4240 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,3917 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1096

JPY

Japanese yen

136,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4607

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71020

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3726

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0466

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8500

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,145

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,48

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1955

RON

Romanian leu

4,4832

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9873

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4747

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3961

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6021

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6581

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4953

KRW

South Korean won

1 246,81

ZAR

South African rand

13,6359

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8856

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5970

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 792,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1937

PHP

Philippine peso

49,988

RUB

Russian rouble

61,8765

THB

Thai baht

37,482

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4584

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4240

INR

Indian rupee

70,3917

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 10.1



                           UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC.

                              110 Little Falls Road

                           Fairfield, New Jersey 07004



Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC                                 November 1, 2001
222 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 9-112
Chicago, Illinois  60654

RE:  Unigene Laboratories, INC.

Gentlemen:

               This letter is being delivered to confirm our understanding with
respect to certain matters under that certain Common Stock Purchase Agreement,
dated as of May 09, 2001 (the "Purchase Agreement"), by and between UNIGENE
LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and FUSION CAPITAL
FUND II, LLC ("Fusion"), with respect to the purchase by Fusion of up to
$21,000,000 of common stock of the Company. All capitalized terms used in this
letter that are not defined in this letter shall have the meanings set forth in
the Purchase Agreement. The Company and Fusion agree as follows:

               Section 10(l) of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

               "(l) "Principal Market" means The Nasdaq OTC/ Bulletin Board
market, provided, however, that in the event the Company's Common Stock is ever
listed for trading on the Nasdaq National Market, Nasdaq SmallCap Market or the
American Stock Exchange, then the "Principal Market" shall mean such other
market on which the Company's Common Stock is then listed.


                                                UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC.

                                                By:     /s/ Warren P. Levy
                                                        -------------------
                                                Name:   Warren P. Levy
                                                Title:  President

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
FUSION CAPITAL FUND II, LLC

By: /s/ Steven G. Martin
    --------------------
    Steven G. Martin
    A Managing Member
#### Fellows vs. Tait. Same vs. Sherry.

A circuit judge will not be compelled by *mandamus*to settle and sign a bill of exceptions in a case which was tried before his predecessor in office.

Whether a circuit judge can be compelled, after bis term of office expires, to settle and sign a bill of exceptions in a cause tried before him during his term, is not determined.

August 21.

*By the Gourt,*

Cole, J.

These are several applications on behalf of the appellants, *Tait*and Sherry, for an order directing the present judge of the tenth circuit to settle and sign bills of exceptions in the above causes. The actions were tried before the predecessor of the present j udge. The practice in this state has been for tbe person before whom a cause was tried to settle the bill of exceptions, although he was no longer judge. And it seems to us that he is the only person who can settle the bill of exceptions, for the plain reason that he alone knows what took place on the trial. How can the present judge settle a bill of exceptions? He knows nothing about what testimony was given on the trial, or what exceptions were taken to the admission or exclusion of evidence, or what instructions were given to the jury upon which questions of law arise. He must necessarily be ignorant of all these matters; and yet we are asked for an order directing him to give a true history of them, and settle a bill of exceptions which shall become a part of the record *157in the cause. This order we cannot' grant. The counsel Who made application for the order suggested that if !person who tried these causes should refuse to sign a bill of exceptions, he could not be compelled to do so, or perforin any other judicial act, since he was no longer judge. And upon this point we were referred to the case of *The People vs.*Pearson, 3 Scammon, 270, where an intimation of that kind is thrown out by the judge who gave the leading opinion; but that question was not there decided. Whether it is a sound position that -a judge cannot be coerced to do a judicial act after the expiration of his term of office, it is not now necessary to decide. See the case of *Galbrath vs. Green,*13 S. & R., 85. But we cannot order the present judge to do what it is very clear he cannot do understandingly and correctly, namely, settle and sign bills of exceptions in the above cases.

The application for an order in each case must therefore be denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DENNIS RICHARD DASHER, a/k/a Timothy Scott

Jones,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,

District Judge. (4:03-cr-00140-JBF)

Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Dennis Richard Dasher, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Richard Dasher seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his motion for a downward departure under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and dismiss

in part. 

The district court denied Dasher’s motion for a reduction

of his sentence under Rule 35(b) as it is well-settled that whether

to file a Rule 35(b) motion is a matter left to the Government’s

discretion. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b); United States v. Dixon, 998

F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir. 1993). Here, the Government found Dasher’s

assistance insufficient to merit a motion and Dasher has failed to

show the Government’s refusal to move for a reduction was based on

an unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181,

185-86 (1992). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order denying

Rule 35(b) relief.

The second order that Dasher appeals denied his § 2255

motion, on the ground that it was filed beyond the one-year limit

for such actions. The order also denied Dasher’s motion to

reconsider the denial of his Rule 35(b) motion. To the extent

Dasher appeals from the denial of § 2255 relief, the order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
- 3 -

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Dasher has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

this portion of the appeal. 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 IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu, Co-President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2009 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2009.



/s/ Carol YuCarol Yu, Co-President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 11, 2009




-49-
## 1997 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-14-1997 

# L at es s a v . N J R a c in g C omm
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 96-5316

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1997 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" L a t e s s a v . N J R a c in g C omm " (1997). 1997 D e cisio n s . P ape r 103. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997/103

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Latessa v. New Jersey Racing Commission

No. 96-5316

The following modifications have been made to the Court’s opinion issued on [date] in the above-entitled appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion:
Page 18, Last Sentence of the First Paragraph, the word “defendant” is replaced with “defendants;” Page 20, Fifth Sentence of the First Full Paragraph, the first letter of the words “Administrative Law Judge” are capitalized; and, Page 21, First Full Sentence on the page, the word “rather” is deleted and a comma inserted after the word “concern,” so that the sentence reads, “Because Mr. Latessa’s internal complaints about administrative procedures touch upon matters of public concern, the issue of retalitory action for internal speech must be remanded.” /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, Clerk

Dated: May 14, 1997
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





The
      Board
      of Directors


Delta
      Financial Corporation:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
      333-15835, 333-88290 and 333-130269) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-127675) on Form
      S-3 of Delta Financial Corporation of our reports dated March 15, 2006, with
      respect to (i) the consolidated balance sheets of Delta Financial Corporation
      and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
      statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for
      each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and (ii)
      management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control
      over
      financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appears in the
      December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Delta Financial
      Corporation.







/s/
      KPMG
      LLP








New
      York,
      New York




March
      15,
      2006