alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. CUPID

No. COA05-331

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Forsyth (02CRS63698, 02CRS63923, 02CRS63924, 02CRS63926).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### 223 West Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v B & D Leistner Properties et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 28]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered December 30, 2004, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent set forth in an order of the same court and Justice entered February 10, 2004, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff would be entitled to a declaration that it is not liable for certain real estate tax escalation increases billed by the City in tax years 2000/2001 and ensuing years to *811the extent such taxes were based on the increase in the assessed value of the building in tax year 2000/2001, and confirming a referee report dated June 2, 2004 holding that the amount of taxes due from plaintiff pursuant to the tax escalation clause of the parties’ lease for tax years 2000/2001 through June 30, 2004 was $20,313.48, and that for the tax years prior to 2000/2001, plaintiff owes $3,372.82, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found that a tax escalation clause such as the one at issue will not be read to impose responsibility on a tenant for “increases in real estate taxes resulting from improvements on the property redounding solely to the benefit of the landlord,” and the addition of new floors to a building is considered such an improvement (see *Credit Exch. v 461 Eighth Ave. Assoc.,*69 NY2d 994, 997 [1987]). The city assessor responsible for the key 2000/2001 assessment of the subject property unambiguously testified that he had assessed plaintiffs unit as a percentage of the building as a whole and that virtually the entire 2000/2001 assessment increase had been due to defendants’ addition of four new floors and their conversion of the building to a residential condominium. Inasmuch as those improvements redounded solely to the benefit of defendants, plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment declaring that it is not liable for a share of the increased assessments for the building in that year or the years following. On the other hand, plaintiff bargained to treat the land separately from the building for tax escalation liability purposes and the record supports the referee’s conclusion, confirmed by the motion court, that plaintiffs liability in this regard extended to the land as improved by a three-story building, which, by the 2000/2001 tax year, had been converted to lots 1201, 1202 and 1203. The record also supports the referee’s conclusion as to tax years prior to 2000/2001. We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         540,790
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,172,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,846,788
<PP&E>                                       1,802,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,969,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,662,779
<BONDS>                                      3,842,296
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,460,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,969,226
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,128,148
<CGS>                                        5,451,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,451,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               139,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,402,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,402,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,402,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40


</TABLE>
ESTATE OF WORTH APPLE, on Behalf of Worth Apple, Deceased Employee, and Bessie Hutchins Apple, Widow of Worth Apple, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff v. COMMERCIAL COURIER EXPRESS, INC., Employer. Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier Defendants.

No. 117P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

R. James Lore, Raleigh, for Estate of Worth Apple.

Norman F. Klick, Jr., Greensboro, for Courier Express & Insurance.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 11th day of March 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
STATE v. BRYANT

No. COA04-1668

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CRS224979, 03CRS224951).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
| ·   | fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Robert E. Cauley                                          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert E. Cauley                                              |
|   | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|   |                                                          |
|   | August 6, 2010                                                |
STATE v. CONWAY

No. COA04-349

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed December 21, 2004

Certification Date January 10, 2005

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5417 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5417

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Permethrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2008

Mr. Etheridge introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Permethrin.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMETHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Permethrin) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 133741 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Justices 

### Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133741 COA: 265377 Wayne CC: 05-004843-01 MYRON JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 12


                   MSW ENERGY HOLDINGS II LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (Unaudited)

                            (in thousands of dollars)

                                                For the Three       For the Six
                                                 Months Ended       Months Ended
                                                June 30, 2004      June 30, 2004
                                                --------------     -------------

EARNINGS:
   Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    before adjustment for minority interest
    in consolidated subsidiary                  $      12,920      $     12,453

   Add (deduct):
     Earnings attributable to Ref-Fuel Holdings
      prior to consolidation                           (1,930)           (6,148)
     Fixed charges                                     12,664            17,158
     Distributed earnings of Ref-Fuel Holdings
      prior to consolidation                            7,500            31,500
                                                --------------     -------------

   Earnings, as adjusted                        $      31,154      $     54,963
                                                ==============     =============

FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense                             $      12,664      $     17,158
                                                --------------     -------------
   Fixed charges                                $      12,664      $     17,158
                                                ==============     =============

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:                      2.46x             3.20x
                                                ==============     =============
STATE v. Paul Dewayne CUMMINGS.

No. 1A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 23, 2005.

William N. Farrell, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of November 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 23rd day of December 2005 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of November 2005."
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jarrod Michael Taylor, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00220

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017F00164 ). Opinion delivered b y Chief Justice Morriss,

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Jarrod Michael Taylor, has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 31, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 USA Superior  Energy  Holdings,
Inc. (the  Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2007 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, G. Rowland Carey, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify,
pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/G. Rowland Carey
                                                ----------------------
                                                 G. Rowland Carey,
                                                 Chief Financial Officer



  Dated:  November 19, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5483 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5483

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 24, 2008

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 10449 White Granite Drive in Oakton, Virginia, as the ``Private 
        First Class David H. Sharrett II Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS DAVID H. SHARRETT II POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 10449 White Granite Drive in Oakton, Virginia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Private First Class David H. Sharrett II 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Private 
First Class David H. Sharrett II Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Steiner Leisure Limited certifies that (1) this Annual Report of Steiner Leisure Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | /s/ Leonard I. Fluxman               
| | -------------------------------------
| | Leonard I. Fluxman                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer

February 27, 2009
**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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Stratum Holdings, Inc. (the “smallbusiness issuer”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Frederick A. Huttner, Chief Executive Officer of the small business issuer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthis Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the small business issuer.

 

 
|   | /s/    | Frederick  A. Huttner    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Frederick  A. Huttner    |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   | May 12,  2008       |

 

----
STATE v. Melvin Wayne BECK.

No. 191PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 1, 2005.

Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

"Defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief filed on the 30th of August 2004 is allowed. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with our opinion in *State v. Allen,*359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256 (2005) (Lake, C.J.,Martin, J., Newby, J. dissenting).

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 1st day of July, 2005."
# C_2017312EN.01000901.xml

| 20.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/9

---

Corrigendum to the Commission Implementing Decision of 12 July 2017 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the single document referred to in Article 94(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the reference to the publication of the product specification for a name in the wine sector (Skalický rubín (PDO))

Official Journal of the European Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 224 of 13 July 2017
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 224 of 13 July 2017

(2017/C 312/08)

On page 10, point 4, under ‘General analytical characteristics’:

for:

for:

‘Minimum total acidity — 3,5 meq/l’

read:

read:

‘Minimum total acidity — 3,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid’.

---
McGLADREY & PULLEN v. BOARD OF CPA Ex.

No. 469A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 10, 2005.

Jack L. Cozort, Raleigh, Deborah L. Edney, Charlotte, for McGladry & Pullen.

Noel L. Allen, M. Jackson Nichols, Raleigh, for Board of CPA Examiners.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of November 2005 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (McGladrey & Pullen) shall have up to and including the 30th day of November 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of November 2005."
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

GLOBAL SIGNAL CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GlobalSignal Inc., (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June  30,  2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry V. Elliott, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theCompany. |

/s/ Jerry V.Elliott                                  JerryV. ElliottChief Executive Officer andPresident

August  8,2006

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Global Signal Inc. and will beretained by Global Signal, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Thiscertification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the‘‘Exchange Act’’). Such certification willnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to theextent that the registrant specifically incorporates it byreference.

----