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

----

| 1.     | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 of ULURU Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| 2.     | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A. |

| Date: April 30, 2015 |                                  | /s/ Kerry P. Gray |   |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
|                 | Kerry P. Gray                         |              |
|                 | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                 | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

----
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Public Parks of the City of New York to Acquire Title to Certain Lands under Chapter 522 of the Laws of 1884. Thomas Bolton, Appellant, *v.*The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent.

(Argued June 17, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made March 28, 1890, which denied a motion for an order that the report of the commissioners in the above proceedings be sent back to said commissioners to ascertain the damages suffered by the appellant.

*Alex. Thorn,*for appellant.

*Franklin Bartlett*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no oninion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






EEO/Civil Rightsheadline bar EEO/CR Committee
               AboutUs
               Area Civil Rights Coordinator
               Mission and Vision
               By Laws
               Area EEO/CR Policies
               Charter
               Outreach Programs
               Special Emphasis Programs
               Quick Links
               Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Overview


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

December 18, 2015

150643

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150643 

COA: 313670

Wayne CC: 94-000424-FH

BOBAN TEMELKOSKI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the requirements of the Sex 

Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., amount to “punishment,” see 

People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (2014); (2) whether the answer to that question is different 

when applied to the class of individuals who have successfully completed probation 

under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq.; (3) whether 

MCL 28.722(b) (defining HYTA status to be a “conviction” for purposes of SORA) 

provides the defendant constitutionally sufficient due process where the defendant is 

required to register pursuant to SORA as if he had been convicted of an offense, 

notwithstanding that upon successful completion of HYTA the court is required to 

“discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings” without entering an order of 

conviction for the crime; MCL 762.14(1); US Const, Am XIV; Const 1963, art 1, § 17; 

(4) whether, assuming that the requirements of SORA do not amount to “punishment” as 

applied to the defendant, application of the civil regulatory scheme established by SORA 

to the defendant otherwise violates guarantees of due process; (5) whether requiring the 

defendant to register under SORA is an ex post facto punishment, where the registry has 

been made public, and other requirements enacted, only after the defendant committed 

the instant offense and pled guilty under HYTA, US Const, art I, § 10; Const 1963, art 1, 

§ 10; and (6) whether it is cruel and/or unusual punishment to require the defendant to 

register under SORA, US Const, Am VIII; Const 1963, art 1, § 16. 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 December 18, 2015

a1215

2

Clerk

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 21.1



ENTITIES OF ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.



|    |  | NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         |  | PLACE OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|   
|1.  |  | AMO Holdings, LLC                          |  | United States (Delaware)              
|2.  |  | AMO Spain Holdings, LLC                    |  | United States (Delaware)              
|3.  |  | AMO U.K. Holdings, LLC                     |  | United States (Delaware)              
|4.  |  | AMO Nominee Holdings, LLC                  |  | United States (Delaware)              
|5.  |  | Advanced Medical Optics Australia Pty Ltd. |  | Australia                             
|6.  |  | AMO Brasil Ltda.                           |  | Brazil                                
|7.  |  | AMO Belgium BVBA                           |  | Belgium                               
|8.  |  | AMO Canada Company                         |  | Canada                                
|9.  |  | AMO Puerto Rico Manufacturing, Inc.        |  | Cayman Islands                        
|10. |  | AMO Ireland                                |  | Cayman Islands                        
|11. |  | AMO (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.                   |  | China                                 
|12. |  | AMO Denmark ApS                            |  | Denmark                               
|13. |  | AMO France SAS                             |  | France                                
|14. |  | AMO Germany GmbH                           |  | Germany                               
|15. |  | AMO Asia Limited                           |  | Hong Kong                             
|16. |  | Allergan Trading International Limited     |  | Ireland                               
|17. |  | AMO International Holdings                 |  | Ireland (Non Resident)                
|18. |  | AMO Italy SrL                              |  | Italy                                 
|19. |  | AMO Japan KK                               |  | Japan                                 
|20. |  | AMO Netherlands BV                         |  | Netherlands                           
|21. |  | Advanced Medical Optics Norway ASA         |  | Norway                                
|22. |  | Advanced Medical Optics Spain S.L.         |  | Spain                                 
|23. |  | Advanced Medical Optics Norden AB          |  | Sweden                                
|24. |  | AMO Switzerland GmbH                       |  | Switzerland                           
|25. |  | AMO United Kingdom, Ltd.                   |  | United Kingdom
#### Bruce W. PATTON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

No. 2008-3171.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 15, 2009.

Christopher F. Attig, Attig Law Firm, PLLC, of Dallas, TX, argued for petitioner.

Jane W. Vanneman, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. Of counsel was Brian T. Edmunds, Trial Attorney.

*619NEWMAN, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) No. 2:16 CR 97

)

ANTOINE LAMARR CROCKETT )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY AND

 ADJUDICATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE # 19), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this

court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3), the

Magistrate Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the

offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is now hereby ACCEPTED, and defendant

is adjudged guilty of that offense. A sentencing date will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 2, 2017

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
# L_2008201EN.01003301.xml

| 30.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 201/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/33

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 738/2008

of 28 July 2008

amending, for the 12th time, Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1), and in particular Article 10(a) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | The Commission is empowered to amend that Annex, taking into account Council Decisions implementing Council Common Position 2004/694/CFSP of 11 October 2004 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of ICTY (2). Council Decision 2008/613/CFSP (3) of 24 July 2008 implements that Common Position. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 should, therefore, be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission is empowered to amend that Annex, taking into account Council Decisions implementing Council Common Position 2004/694/CFSP of 11 October 2004 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of ICTY (2). Council Decision 2008/613/CFSP (3) of 24 July 2008 implements that Common Position. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 should, therefore, be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 2008.

For the Commission

Eneko LANDÁBURU

Director-General for External Relations

---

(1)  
  OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 14. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 789/2007 (OJ L 175, 5.7.2007, p. 27).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 52. Common Position as last amended by Common Position 2007/635/CFSP (OJ L 256, 2.10.2007, p. 30).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 197, 25.7.2008, p. 63.

3

---

ANNEX

The following person shall be removed from Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004:

Zupljanin, Stojan. Date of birth: 22.9.1951. Place of birth: Kotor Varos, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationality: Bosnia and Herzegovina.

---
#### Vermeer Owners, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Fleur Garage Corp., Respondent-Appellant, and Gerald Guterman et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Fleur Garage Corp., Respondent, v Vermeer Garage Corp., Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York. County (Shainswit, J.), entered December 17, 1984, denying the motion of *669Fleur Garage Corp. to dismiss the amended complaint, and further denying the motion of the several plaintiffs in a Supreme Court action and Vermeer Garage Corp., defendant in a Civil Court proceeding, for removal and consolidation of the Civil Court proceeding with the Supreme Court action, modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, to grant the motion to consolidate the Civil Court proceeding with the Supreme Court action, and otherwise affirmed.

We are in agreement with Special Term that the amended complaint, seeking, *inter alia,*a declaration that a certain garage lease dated April 27, 1979 be deemed invalid, adequately sets forth a legal claim for relief.

As to Special Term’s denial of the motion to consolidate, however, we are persuaded that the totality of the circumstances presented here strongly indicates the advisability that the issues be determined in a single consolidated action.

Accordingly, we modify Special Term’s order to the extent of granting the motion for consolidation. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

THOMAS EDWARD BURWELL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00111-REP-1) 

Submitted: July 29, 2009 Decided: August 10, 2009 

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Edward Burwell, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Thomas Edward Burwell appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for sentence reduction filed pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burwell, 

No. 3:04-cr-00111-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2009). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Clark, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered December 20, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621). We have examined defen*829dant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
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 Equitex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry Fong, President,
Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer, 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



                                       /s/ Henry Fong
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Henry Fong
                                       President, Treasurer and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       November 19, 2003


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO EQUITEX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EQUITEX, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19 , 2024

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00649

- CV

MARK SAPAUGH , Appellant

V.
MORTGAGE ASSESTS MANAGEMENT LLC , Appellee
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No
. 2

Harris County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 1197744

MEMORANDUM OPINION The underlying December 12, 2 022 justice

- court judgment in this forcible

- detainer case dismiss ed defendant Loyle Sapaugh , deceased , and rendered judgment of posse s sion for plaintiff Mortg age Assests Man agement LLC against defendant M arla Kay Sapaugh. Marla Kay Sapaugh did not appear, but her son, who was not a named party , did ap pear

. Marla Kay Sapaugh appealed. 1

1 A coun ty court has appellate jurisdiction i n civil cases over which the justice courts have original jurisdiction, i ncluding forcib le entry and detainer suits. See Tex. Gov’t Code2

In the de novo case in county civil court at law, p l aintiff dismissed its claims
ag ainst Lo yle , and the county c ivil court at law signed a March 10, 2023 final judgment of possession for plaintiff against defendant , whose name was misspelled

“ Maria Kay Sapaugh

. ” 2 No notice of appeal was filed

. The county ci vil court at law si g ned a n August 18, 2 023 judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the spelling of defendant ’ s name, rendering possession for plaintiff against defendant “ Marla Kay Sapaugh

. ” Mark Sapaugh filed a n August 23, 20 23 notice of appeal , suggesting that Marla Sapaugh die d on May 6 , 2023

. No tim e ly notice of appeal regarding the merits of the underlying March 10, 2023 judgment of possession appears to have been filed , and no one argues that the subsequent judgment nunc pro tunc extended the appellate ti me tables

. Accordingly, this court issued notice on F e bruary 21, 202 4 that the appeal would be dismissed for want of subject

- matter jurisdiction unless any party filed a
response within 10 days showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. No resp onse w as filed. We dismis s the appeal for want of subject

- mat ter jurisdiction.
PER C URIAM
Panel Consists of J u stices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.

§§ 26.042(e) , 27.031(a)(2) . But in those counties having statutory county courts, the statutory county court has jurisd iction over all causes and proceedings, civil and criminal, original and appellate, pres cribed by law for county courts. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.0003(a)

. Harris County has county civil courts at law

. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 25. 1031(a) . Thus, in Harris Count y, the county civil court at law has jurisdiction over appeals from justice co u rt. See T ex. R. Civ. P

. 509.8 (appeal from justice court).

2 There is no dispute that defendant was served and was a party to the underlying case

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantine L. Jackson, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
#### HOUSE, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 7, 1899.)

Action by Sarah E. House against the Erie Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. See 50 N. Y. Supp. 434.