alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MARVEN L. POINDEXTER, INC. v. BOARDWALK, LLC.

No. COA05-1029.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Iredell (02CVS1563).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130048 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130048 COA: 261622 Calhoun CC: 00-004624-FC DESHAWN D. WITCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the October 14, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0424 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.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 10.35.6(GENERALE LOGO)**Appendix 3**     **BUSINESS OBJECTS SA**  **Mr. John SCHWARZ**  **157 — 159 rue Anatole France**   **agence la défense entreprises**       **92300 Levallois-Perret**        Puteaux, July 12th, 2007**AMENDMENT LETTER**Dear Sir,We make reference to the credit agreement (hereafter called “the credit agreement”)between BUSINESS OBJECTS SA, having its registered office at 157—159 rueAnatole France, 92300 Levallois-Perret, with its sole identification number 379 821994 RCS Nanterre and SOCIETE GENERALE SA, having its registered office at 29boulevard Haussmann, 75009 Paris, with its sole identification number 552 120 222RCS Paris, made in Levallois-Perret on March 01st, 2006 for an amount of 100.000.000EUR (one hundred million euros), as extended per an amendment letter datedFebruary 23rd, 2007 until May 31st , 2007 and re-extend per an amendmentletter dated May 23th, 2007 until July 31st, 2007.As commonly agreed between BUSINESS OBJECTS SA and SOCIETE GENERALE, we herebytemporarily re- extend the maturity date of the credit facility from July 31st, 2007to December 31st, 2007.All other terms and conditions of the credit agreement remain unchanged.This amendment letter is submitted to French law and to the jurisdiction of thecourts in Paris.We kindly ask you to acknowledge the temporary extension as proposed.Yours sincerely,    /s/ LEFEVRE Jean-Francois  /s/ John Schwarz  For SOCIETE GENERALE SA For BUSINESS OBJECTS SA  Mr. LEFEVRE Jean-Francois Mr. John SCHWARZ Deputy Manager of CEO of BUSINESS OBJECTSLa Défense Entreprises Branch   In 2 Copies**tour ariane — 5, place de la pyramide, quarter villon,92088 paris la défense cedex tel 01 46 96 57 00. ccpparis 19.931.48 w. fax 01 47 76 40 43Illegible**
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Date: November 6, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ DAVID G. NANCEName:
    
    David G. NanceTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
  Date: November 6, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ JAMES W. ALBRECHT, JR.Name:
    
    James W. Albrecht, Jr.Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 10

- 00717

- CV Alan URESTI , Appellant

v. Joann GUTIERREZ , Appellee From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006

- CI

- 09548 Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011
DISMISSED The clerk ’ s record was due on December 1, 2010, and has not been filed. On December 6, 2010, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk ’ s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, and appe llant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On December 21, 2010, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by January 3, 2011, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant responded by filing a pro s e motion requesting04

- 10

- 00717

- CV

- 2

- reconsideration of the court’s show cause order; appellant asserts he is indigent, and requests that the clerk’s record and reporter’s record be filed in this court without the need for payment. On January 7, 2011, a certified copy of the trial court’s “Order Sustaining Contests to Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs on Appeal Filed by Alan Uresti and Ordering Alan Uresti to Pay All Costs of Appeal” was filed in this court. Because the record shows the appellant is not indigent and has failed to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b). Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 15

- 00201

- CR

M ICHAEL R AY S ENN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 213th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1308222R )

October 15, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

This appeal is on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals

.

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court ’s judgment s . It is ordered that the judgment s of

the trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
STATE of North Carolina v. Lonny Joe SWANSON.

No. 700P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lonny Hoe Swanson.

Kevin Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, William David McFadyen, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of December 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 2nd day of March 2006."
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Richard D. Glinski, Appellant. Radio Shack Corporation, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 94]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 27, 2004, which ruled that claimant was *1202disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a consumer electronics technician when, despite having been previously warned about insubordinate behavior, he left in disregard of his manager’s directive to return to his bench and continue working. Claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he engaged in disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. It is well settled that leaving work without authorization can constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Ferrar [Commissioner of Labor],*10 AD3d 766 [2004]; *Matter of Spinel [Commissioner of Labor],*2 AD3d 1133 [2003]). Moreover, claimant’s failure to comply with the manager’s reasonable request to return to work, particularly in light of the fact that claimant has been previously warned about his insubordinate behavior, amounted to disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Chillious [Commissioner of Labor],*3 AD3d 655 [2004]; *Matter of Goodrich [Raymond Corp.—Commissioner of Labor],*301 AD2d 720 [2003]). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions, including that he was denied the right to submit relevant documentary evidence, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Jack L. Alexander, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MidAmerican Energy Company;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;
 
 4. The registrants other certifying officers 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:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrants other certifying officers 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 4, 2004
 /s/ Jack L. Alexander
 Jack L. Alexander
 Senior Vice President
 (co-chief executive officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Jimmy Lawrence SHUE.

No. 103P04-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Brian Michael Aus, Durham, for Jimmy L. Shue.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th day of March 2006 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 29th day of June 2006."
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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May 31, 2005

/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>


                            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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May 31, 2005

/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Ernest Lamont INMAN.

No. 709P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Inman.

Gayl M. Manthei, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of December 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 *908order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of November 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Keith Daniel McNEIL.

No. 451P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Keith D. McNeil, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th day of August 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
STATE v. ROWE.

No. COA05-210.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (94CRS20097, 94CRS11821)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
TEAGUE v. DOT.

No. 281P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

John C. Hunter, for Joseph Teague, Jr.

*199Tina Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of July 2006 by Petitioner to Supplement Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
# L_2013102EN.01001901.xml

| 11.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/19

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 9 April 2013

correcting the Dutch version of Annex IV to Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community

(notified under document C(2013) 1962)

(2013/176/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular point (d) of the second paragraph of Article 14 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Dutch language version of Directive 2000/29/EC as amended by Commission Directive 2002/36/EC (2) contains an error. In point 32.1 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV, the words ‘met uitzondering van Europese en mediterrane landen’ have been wrongly inserted and must therefore be deleted. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Dutch language version of Directive 2000/29/EC as amended by Commission Directive 2002/36/EC (2) contains an error. In point 32.1 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV, the words ‘met uitzondering van Europese en mediterrane landen’ have been wrongly inserted and must therefore be deleted. The other language versions are not affected.

| (2) | Directive 2000/29/EC should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Directive 2000/29/EC should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Concerns only the Dutch language version.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 April 2013.

For the Commission

Androulla VASSILIOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 116, 3.5.2002, p. 16.

2

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of B&G Foods, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David L. Wenner, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

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

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ David L. Wenner     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David L. Wenner         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| November 1, 2006        |

 

*A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.*

----
exv10w12



 






Exhibit 10.12



Summary of Performance Goals with Respect to the Restricted Stock Agreement Dated May 27, 2005
Between Allied Waste Industries, Inc. and John J. Zillmer



On August 1, 2005, the
Management Development/Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (“Company”)
approved certain performance goals with respect to 50,000 restricted
shares of the Company’s common stock previously granted to
John J. Zillmer, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, on
May 27, 2005. Upon the attainment of three separate EBITDA
targets that expire in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively,
Mr. Zillmer’s restricted shares will vest in an amount equal
to one-third of the total grant if he attains the specified EBITDA
target on or before that target’s expiration date.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0083 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WES LEE WHITAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until September 7, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 8 2022

08/08/2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donnell Jordan, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 33]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered May 13, 2003 convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]; *People v Jean,*13 AD3d 466 [2004]). The evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant willingly accompanied Town of Poughkeepsie Police Department detectives to the station house where he voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights *(see Miranda v Arizona,*supra) before making his incriminating statements *(see People v Leggio,*305 AD2d 518 [2003]).

Furthermore, although the defendant was represented by counsel on a prior unrelated charge at the time he was brought in for questioning, he was not in custody on that charge at the time of the interview. A defendant who is not in custody on the prior matter in which he is represented is free to waive his right to counsel for questioning on the new charge *(see People v Burdo,*91 NY2d 146 [1997]; *People v Steward,*88 NY2d 496 [1996]; *386
      *People v Bing,*76 NY2d 331 [1990]). It is the defendant, not counsel on the prior matter, who decides whether or not to invoke the defendant’s right to counsel *(see People v Bing, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.