alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BRYSON, et al. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.

No. 640P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Lester Daniel Bryson, Pro Se, for Bryson and Bowen.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Pro Se, et al.

The following order has been entered on the petition filed on the 23rd day of March 2005 by Plaintiff for a Rehearing and En Banc by the Full Supreme Court Justices:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
HomeOcean Facts

# What ocean basin has the most corals?

## The Pacific Ocean has the most coral species.

Generally, there are about twice as many coral species in Pacific Ocean reefs  as in Atlantic Ocean reefs. 

Reef-building corals are restricted in their geographic  distribution by factors such as the temperature and the salinity (salt content)  of the water. The water must also be clear to permit high light penetration.

Because of these environmental restrictions, reefs generally  are confined to tropical and semitropical waters. The diversity of reef corals  (the number of species), decreases in higher latitudes up to about 30° north  and south, beyond which reef corals are usually not found.

Generally, there are about twice as many coral species in  Pacific Ocean reefs as in Atlantic Ocean reefs.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program
          - U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
          - NOAA Coral Reef Information System
          - Corals Tutorial
          - Five Things You Should Know About Coral Reefs
          - Value of Coral Reefs (audio podcast)

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
SKINNER v. FURMAN.

No. COA04-236.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Watauga, (01CVS542).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### TOBIN, Secretary of Labor, v. RAMEY.

No. 14370.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 30, 1953.

Harry N. Routzohn, Solicitor, Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., William A. Lowe and Sylvia S. Ellison, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., and Earl Street, Reg. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Robert E. Leake, Jr., New Orleans, La., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before HOLMES, BORAH and RIVES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

Appellant brought this action to enjoin appellee from violating the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 207(a), 211 (c), and 215(a) (2), (5). The district court denied this relief because it found that ap-pellee’s employees were not within the coverage of the Act. As the trial court said, there is little or no dispute as to the facts. It is conceded that appellee did not comply, as to the employees engaged in the work, with the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Act.

Appellee has been awarded a number of contracts by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, all but one of which has been for work in the repair, maintenance, enlargement, and improvement of levees on the Mississippi River, unquestionably a navigable stream. In effect at the time of the filing of the complaint in this case was a contract for the repair, enlargement, and improvement of the White Oak Lake Levee which, though a setback levee, is a segment of the levee system for the main channel of the Mississippi River. It was constructed in 1931 and 1932, and subsequently was enlarged by appellee pursuant to a comprehen*607sive Congressional plan for the control of that river. The plan covered the great alluvial valley of the Mississippi through its entire length from the Ohio River to the delta. It was based upon a levee system that would restrict the water to a moderate degree and then, in periods of extreme floods, allow it to escape over some lower le\ees, known as fuse-plugs.

The trial court found that the White Oak Lake Levee is a part of the main-line system of the Mississippi River. The theory is that confinement of the river increases the body of water carried within its banks, and that levees may affect the hydraulic efficiency of a river whether they are one hundred feet, one mile, or even five miles from the river, since the matter is one of degree. We think the trial court erred in holding that employees engaged in the repair, improvement, and enlargement of an existing segment of the levee system for the main channel of the Mississippi River are not engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

We do not regard this case as moot. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
STATE v. John NORMAN.

No. 567P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 2, 2004.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mitchell D. Norton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of November 2004 by Defendant for Relief:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of December 2004."
Theaoseus T. CLAYTON v. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR.

No. 224P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Irving Joyner, Durham, for Theaoseus T. Clayton.

A. Root Edmonson, for NC State Bar.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 27th day of April 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
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 Riddle  Records,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Jacques Tizabi
-----------------------------
Jacques Tizabi
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
December 14, 2004

/s/ Ali Moussavi
-----------------------------
Ali Moussavi
Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
December 14, 2004

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
 been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

I, Bruce D. Hansen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of General Moly, Inc. for thequarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of General Moly, Inc.

 

Dated: August 4, 2009

 
|   | By:                           | /s/ Bruce D.  Hansen     |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|
|   | Name:                         | Bruce D. Hansen          |
|   | Title:                        | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|        |                               |                          |  |

 

----
STATE v. FULTON.

No. COA03-1559.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 20, 2004.

Certification Date August 9, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Jathiyah AL-BAYYINAH.

No. 550A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 29, 2004.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joan Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State.

Janet Moore, Assistant Public Defender, for Jathiyah al-Bayyinah.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of November 2004 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendant (Jathiyah al-Bayyinah) shall have up to and including the 17th day of January 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of November 2004."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RIDGEVIEW, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         189,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,720,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   605,000
<INVENTORY>                                 27,679,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,231,000
<PP&E>                                      29,296,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,533,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,417,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,528,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,043,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,417,000
<SALES>                                     97,800,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            97,800,000
<CGS>                                       82,109,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,338,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,610,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,259,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,065,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,194,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,194,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.40)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filedRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-58648, 333-59826,333-82122 and 333-104697) and Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-107028 and333-107799) of our report dated January 16, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Introgen Therapeutics, Inc. included inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Austin, Texas
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

p0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

140253 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140253 

 COA: 294118 

Ottawa CC: 09-033312-FH 

LUCRETIA YVONNE BISHOP, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for Eastern

District of Missouri

. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 01-1701

________________ Sandra L. Marxkors,

Appellant,

v. GTE Wireless, Inc.,

Appellee. * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: September 10, 2001 Filed: October 4, 2001

________________ Before MCMILLIAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM.
Sandra Marxkors appeals the district court's 1 dismissal of her action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 and 623(a)(1) (1994), against her former employer, GTE Wireless, Inc. (GTE). Marxkors filed this action after she lost her position when GTE eliminated and reorganized part of its2

workforce in its St. Louis, Missouri, office. Having conducted de novo review, Britton v. City of Poplar Bluff, Mo. , 244 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2001), we affirm.
M arxkors presented no direct evidence of age discrimination. Therefore, the district court employed the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502 (1993). The district court assumed for the purposes of summary judgment that Marxkors had establishedher prima facie case, but it concluded that GTE had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at 802. Marxkors did not dispute that her attendance and punctuality were poor, that she had made personal calls in violation of company policy, that her performance was unsatisfactory, or that the two younger employees retained after the reorganizationeach had performance evaluations superior to hers. Marxkors failed to present any evidence that these reasons for not retaining her after the reorganization were pretextual. See id. at 804; Ryther v. KARE 11 , 108 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir.) (en banc) ("Obviously, in all age discrimination cases, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence of the elements of the prima facie case and where necessary, adduce sufficient proof of pretext to meet the traditional tests of summary judgment. . . ."), cert. denied , 521 U.S. 1119 (1997). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 VIASPACE INC.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VIASPACE Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: November 13, 2007
    /s/ CARL KUKKONENCarl KukkonenChief Executive Officer
# L_2016155EN.01000401.xml

| 14.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 155/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 155/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/926

of 1 June 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pintade de l'Ardèche (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Pintade de l'Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Pintade de l'Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pintade de l'Ardèche’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pintade de l'Ardèche’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Pintade de l'Ardèche’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of 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, 1 June 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 53, 12.2.2016, p. 10.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Ricky Earl SCOTT.

No. 621P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Ricky Earl Scott.

Jeffrey B. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: 161 N.C.App. 104, 587 S.E.2d 485.

***399*****ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of November 2003 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
STATE v. Gary LAWRENCE.

No. 457PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 1, 2005.

Thomas C. Maher, Chapel Hill, for Lawrence.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the second motion filed on the 31st day of May 2005 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

*662"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 6th day of July 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of June 2005."
EXHIBIT 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our report dated September 24, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the
Annual Report of Prosoft Learning Corporation (formerly ProsoftTraining) on Form 10-K for the years ended July 31, 2004 and 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the registration statements of
ProsoftTraining on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-40982, 333-30336, 333-35249, 333-28993, 333-11247, 333-53000, 333-57764, 333-64196, 333-76984 and 333-119339) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19477, 333-67425, 333-51360, 333-53472 and 333-81310).



|                      
|----------------------
|                      
|/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
|                      
|Phoenix, Arizona      
|October 27, 2005
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffrey Lynn WILLIAMS.

No. 11P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Jeffrey Lynn Williams, Pro Se.

Charles J. Murray, Special Deputy Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of January 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 2005."
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-38309, 333-36189,
333-44985, 333-55775, 333-66793, 333-80617, and 333-87067) and S-8 (Nos. 333-16385, 333-35937, 333-39796, 333-56171, 333-75945, and 333-87426) of QuadraMed Corporation of our report dated March 28, 2003 and May 15, 2003 relating to the consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows of QuadraMed Corporation, and the related financial statement schedule, appearing in Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of QuadraMed Corporation.



/s/    Pisenti & Brinker LLPPISENTI & BRINKER LLP




Petaluma, California

March 15, 2004