alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016339EN.01000101.xml

| 16.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7603 — Statoil Fuel and Retail/Dansk Fuels)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 339/01)

On 23 March 2016, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the 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 32016M7603. 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 32016M7603. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
#### Hays vs. Hays.

The parties to an action for divorce are entitled to testify in their own behalf.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Green Lake*County.

Action for divorce. The defendant appealed from a judgment for the plaintiff. The only question presented by the record is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*jHamilton & Perkins,*for appellant,

cited secs. 1 and 2, ch. 184, Laws of 1858; *Barnes v.*Martin„ 15 Wis., 240 ; */Shoemaker v.*McKee, 19 How. Pr. R, 86; *P-v.*P-, 24 id,, 197; *Ghamberlain v. The People,*28 *N.*Y., 85; *Marsh v.*Potter, 80 Barb., 506.

*Peter B.*Kissam, for respondent,

cited 2 Kent (10th ed.), 184, 185; 1 Blacks. Com., 444; *Stein v.*Bowman, 18 Peters, 209; *Fitch v. Hill,*11 Mass., 286; *Barnes v. Oamaclc,*1 Barb. S. O.), 892; 1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 334, 343; *Schceffler v. The*
      *183
      *State,*3 Wis., 844-45; *JSrwin v. Smaller,*2 Sandf., 340; *Ar-borgast v. Arborgast,*8 How. Pr. R., 297 ; Sedgw. on Stat. and Con. Law, 314.

*By the Court,*

Downed, J.

The only question in this case is, did the court below err in refusing to permit the defendant to be sworn as a witness in her own behalf? It is contended that sec. 2, ch. 134, Laws of 1858, has made the parties in actions for divorce competent witnesses. The statute reads: “A party to a civil action or proceeding may be examined as a witness in his or her own behalf on the trial, except,” &c. The statute is very broad. It enumerates certain exceptions to the general rule, which is equivalent to the exclusion of all others. *Bxpressio unius est exclusio aMerius.*Actions for divorce are not-within the exceptions. We cannot matean exception where the statute has made none, and must hold that the defendant had a right to be examined on her own behalf.

Judgment of the court below reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 01, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 01, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0208. JOE ENTERPRISE, LLC, d/b/a IHOP RESTAURANT v. JANET KANE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

14V441
# C_2016279EN.01000101.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

---

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

(2016/C 279/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

OJ C 243, 4.7.2016

OJ C 232, 27.6.2016

OJ C 222, 20.6.2016

OJ C 211, 13.6.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCEHDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FORM THE FIRST QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         274,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,673,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (382,418)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,680,074
<PP&E>                                       1,905,763
<DEPRECIATION>                               (844,445)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,803,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,793,550
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,264
<OTHER-SE>                                    (58,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,803,646
<SALES>                                      2,408,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,408,894
<CGS>                                          799,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,104,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                277,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                       444
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            276,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   276,865
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13 - 2 3 - 00 530 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. LUIS V. SAENZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides 1

R elator the State of Texas ex rel. Luis V. Saenz filed a petition for writ of
mandamus asserting that the trial court has “a ministerial duty to accept or reject the plea bargain entered into b y the State and the juvenile defendant without modification.” This Court has requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, J.A.G., a juvenile.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

T he parties disagree regarding the relevant standard of review for this original proceeding : relator presented and briefed the issue raised in this original proceeding as

a c riminal matter , governed by the code of criminal procedure, in which the trial court failed to comply with a ministerial duty , and J.A. , in contrast, argues that the trial court acted within its discretion under civil standards of review

. Compare In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) ( discussing the general “abuse of discretion” standard) , with In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding) ( discussing the “ministerial act” requirement). The parties further disagree regarding the availability and adequacy of a remedy by appeal.
A juvenile proceeding is quasi

- criminal in natur e, see In re L.D.C. , 400 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex. 2013) , and the application of civil or criminal analyses in such cases vary depending on the circumstances presented

. See In re D.I.B. , 988 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Tex. 1999) ( generally discussing the civil and criminal rules applicable to juvenile proceedings and the different approaches taken to probation by the family code and the code of criminal procedure ) ; In re I.F.M. , 525 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“ Civil and criminal rules apply at different stages of the same proceeding .”) ;

see e.g. , T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. §§ 51.17 (procedure and evidence) , 54.03(j) (agreements), 54.034 (limited right to appeal with a plea or stipulation of evidence), 56.0 1 (right to appeal by juvenile) , 56.03 (right to appeal by state)

. We need not address this issue here, however, because in any event, we deny mandamus relief. In short, under the ill

- defined parameters of the plea bargain presented to the trial court, the trial court neither abused its discretion nor failed to comply wit h a ministerial duty. Accordingly, we d eny t he petition3

for writ of mandamus.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b ). Delivered and filed on the 3r d day of January , 202 4

.
Exhibit 32.1    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 IGI Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles E. Moore, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, state and certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.   Date: August 16, 2010   /s/ Charles E. MooreCharles E. MoorePresident and Chief Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LLOYD OBED ADAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00195

- TDS

- 1; 1:15

- cv - 00761

- TDS

- JEP )

Submitted : October 18, 2018 Decided: October 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lloyd Obed Adams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lloyd Obed Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s jud gment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or ag ency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reop ens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 2 1, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed on June 18, 2018. * Because Adams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988)

.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16


                         FAMOUS DAVE'S OF AMERICA, INC.

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                         1997 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN



         1.   Increase in Number of Shares Subject to the Plan. Section 5.1 of 
the 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

              5.1. Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in
         Section 10.6, the number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued
         under the Plan shall not exceed 500,000 shares of Common Stock.

         2.   Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of February 
15, 1998.
# C_2016044EN.01000201.xml

| 5.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 February 2016

(2016/C 44/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1206 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4629 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76595 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4036 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1169 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5375 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,49 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4152 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5087 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2500 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5546 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5366 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7277 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6678 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5720 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 336,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,7670 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3691 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6610 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 269,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6125 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,366 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,0790 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,952 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3486 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,3101 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,8600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1206

JPY

Japanese yen

131,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4629

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76595

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4036

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1169

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5375

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,49

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4152

RON

Romanian leu

4,5087

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2500

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5546

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5366

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7277

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6678

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5720

KRW

South Korean won

1 336,75

ZAR

South African rand

17,7670

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3691

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6610

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 269,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6125

PHP

Philippine peso

53,366

RUB

Russian rouble

86,0790

THB

Thai baht

39,952

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3486

MXN

Mexican peso

20,3101

INR

Indian rupee

75,8600

---

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

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     1958658
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           2060000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>               20910159
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      932579
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        922840
<LOANS>                                   38554138
<ALLOWANCE>                                 481930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            66208740
<DEPOSITS>                                58040099
<SHORT-TERM>                                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         461554
<LONG-TERM>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   7960341
<OTHER-SE>                                 (253254)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            66208740
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            3145196
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          1363668
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            157297
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           4666161
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         2213029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2213029
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      2453132
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               170818
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            7089
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            1711661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             699564
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  485232
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                485232
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                  23000
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            360000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                51000
<RECOVERIES>                                  2000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           482000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        482000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1




CARTHEW BAY TECHNOLOGIES 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 Annual Report of Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Liik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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/ Michael LiikMichael LiikPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

\ 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Washington, DC 20591 

November 3, 2015 

Request for Section 333 exemption 

en 

r; 

( . 

Nathan Crozier petitions for a Grant of Exemption so that he can conduct aerial 

videography and cinematography to augment real estate listing videos. Specifically I 

request an exemption from part 21, subpart H; and Sections 45.23(b),61.113(a) and (b), 

91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,91 .151 (a), 91 .203(a) and (b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1 ), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). These flights would be conducted using a 3DR Solo with attached 

Go Pro. 

Nathan maintains a class 4 flight physical and was trained as a UA V operator by the 

Army. To ensure I do not interfere with any other manned aircraft I will not fly above 400' 

or within 5 miles of any airport unless I am in radio contact with the control tower. To 

ensure all know of my presence I will post all flights on Notams and will advise all local 

residence of impending flights. On the day of the flight I will post sign age indicating that 

a UAV flight is in the immediate area. As for the actual UAV operation I will complete a 

preflight safety check of the UAS that will ensure all components of the system work as 

required. 

The only operator of the aircraft will be by Nathan who has completed FAA ground 

school and flies UAVs for the Army National Guard. Over 100 hours have been achieved 

on the solo to ensure proficiency in flight. Granting this exemption to Nathan would allow 

me to provide aerial photography at a much lower cost than manned aircraft. Small UAS 

_ wiiLpose no.thr:eauo the,public..given its small size and lack of combustible fuel when 

compared to larger manned aircraft, Operation of this UAS will minimize ecological 

damage and promote economic growth by providing information to companies looking to 

relocate or build. 

Operator 

301 Jewel Drive Unit 4 

Ames, lA 50010
# C_2016297EN.01000701.xml

| 17.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8023 — Hon Hai Precision/Sharp)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 297/05)

On 20 June 2016, 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 the 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 32016M8023. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8023. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---