alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North. Carolina v. Lavoris Monteiz BATTLE.

No. 422P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lavoris Monteiz Battle.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: 172 N.C.App. 335, 615 S.E.2d 733.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 10th day of August 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 19th day of December 2006."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamal Petty, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 295]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, *829J.), rendered January 28, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 8Vs to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Were we to find any error in the court’s exclusion of certain evidence concerning prior threats made by the deceased, we would find the error to be harmless *(see People v Luberoff,*150 AD2d 802 [1989], *lv denied*74 NY2d 813 [1989]). This evidence was cumulative and added little or nothing to defendant’s justification defense. Furthermore, there was overwhelming evidence that defendant was the initial and only aggressor, and that he was not justified in shooting his unarmed victim.

The court’s justification charge, when read as a whole, provided the jury with proper guidance on the “initial aggressor” issue *(see*Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [b]) and could not have caused any prejudice to defendant. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 280/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 280/2013 of 22 March 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 concerning the technical specification            for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail            system (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 280/2013                     

# of 22 March 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic                        applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1305/2014 of 11 December 2014 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to                                 the telematics applications for freight subsystem of the rail system in the European Union and repealing the Regulation (EC)                                 No 62/2006 Text with EEA relevance.
FORMYDUVAL v. BRITT.

No. 357A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2007.

Ronnie M. Mitchell, Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville, for Britt.

*810T. LaFontine Odom, Sr., Benton H. Walton, III, Whiteville, for Formyduval.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of January 2007 by Plaintiff for Additional Oral Argument:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2007."
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany  Catskill  Litigation  Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 30, 2006;

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Catskill  Litigation  Trust on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended June 30,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A. deBary, Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Catskill Litigation Trust,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or  Section  15(d),  as  applicable,  of the  Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Catskill Litigation Trust.

                                           /s/ Paul A. deBary
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Paul A. deBary
                                           Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                           Date:  August 10, 2006

         (1)      A  signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by
                  Section 906 has been provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and
                  will be retained by Catskill Litigation Trust and furnished to
                  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff  upon
                  request.

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
```
EXHIBIT 15

                   AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


MidAmerican Energy Company
Des Moines, Iowa

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited consolidated interim
financial  information of MidAmerican  Energy Company and  subsidiaries  for the
three-month and six-month  periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, as indicated in
our  report  dated  July 20,  2001;  because  we did not  perform  an audit,  we
expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  June  30,  2001,  is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-59760 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  is not  considered  a part  of the  Registration
Statement  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared  or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
August 10, 2001
NAGS HEAD CONST. AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. TOWN OF NAGS HEAD.

No. COA05-1086.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Dare (04CVS055).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.2    
    


Lease Agreement: 



	Leassor:	Yu Cheng Chi
	Leassee:	Dong Ya Hui Feng Automobile Trading Limited





        According
to Contact Law of China, we hereby agreed that Lessor shall lease 8,950 sq.feet property located at 83, Nan Shen Cheng Road, Shen He District, Shen Yang City to Leassee
under the following terms: 




	1.
	Term
of Lease: one year for USD 24,096. The lease will start on October 1, 2004 and expires on October 1, 2005.



	2.
	Leassor
warrants that Lessor has ownership and leasing rights to the said property and will reimburse Leassee for any damage caused due to deficiency in Leassor's ownership and leasing
rights.



	3.
	Leassee
cannot sublease the said property to other party. Leassee is responsible for water, electricity and other expenses. Leassor is responsible for the heating expense for the said
property.



	4.
	Leassee
will be responsible for damage caused to the said property during the term of the lease.



	5.
	In
case of dispute, both party agreed to resolve the dispute according to China Contract Law via arbitration. 








	Leassor	 	Leassee
	

 	
 	

 
	/s/  YU CHENG CHI      	 	/s/  DONG YA HUI FENG AUTOMOBILE TRADING LIMITED      













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000929144
<NAME> YOUNG BROADCASTING INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,362
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,147
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,448
<PP&E>                                         111,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,940
<BONDS>                                        570,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               14
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   848,471
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,318
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,894)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. WATTS.

COA06-480.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 21, 2006.

Certification Date December 11, 2006.

Appeal from the Macon (03CRS52262).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. RICHARDSON.

No. COA05-1128.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS62833).

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Ray WOODARD, Jr.

No. 239P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Raleigh, for Bobby Ray Woodard, Jr.

Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of May 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 8th day of March 2007."
Exhibit 4.3


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT


OF 


EASTSIDE DISTILLING, INC.


 


June 30, 2016


 


WHEREAS, on April 4,
2016, Eastside Distilling, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), issued to _______ (“Holder”)
that certain Common Stock Purchase Warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase [number of warrant shares
originally issued (_________)] shares (“Warrant Shares”) of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share of the
Company (“Common Stock”) at an exercise price per share of $0.18, subject to adjustment as provided
in the Warrant (the “Exercise Price”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Holder have determined that it is advisable and in their best interests to amend the Warrant, as provided herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged,
and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and the Holder hereby agree as follows:


 


1.          The
Warrant Exercise Price shall be reduced to $0.10.


 


2.          The
Warrant Shares that Holder is entitled to purchase under the Warrant shall be increased to [(13,332 shares) * (number of Units
purchased)] (_________) fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock.


 


3.          The
undersigned is an “accredited investor,” as such term is defined in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


 


4.          The
Company and the Holder hereby acknowledge and agree that this Amendment No. 1 constitutes a valid amendment of the Warrant. This
Amendment No. 1 may be executed and delivered (including by facsimile or e-mail transmission) in any number of counterparts, and
by the different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original
but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Except to the extent necessary to implement the change
set forth above, the Warrant shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. This Amendment No. 1 shall be construed and
enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada, without giving
effect to the conflict of law provisions thereof.


 




     

     

    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the
Holder have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be signed on the date first set forth above.


 


	 	“COMPANY”
	 	 
	 	EASTSIDE DISTILING, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Steven Earles, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	“HOLDER”
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	[Name of Warrant Holder]


 




     2
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 553/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 553/2013 of 13 June 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international            waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 553/2013                     

# of 13 June 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag                        of Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 13 June 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
#### Melissa Cuccurullo, Appellant, v Joseph Cuccurullo, Jr., Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 360]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 4, 1998, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Adams, J.), dated August 19, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to modify the *984joint custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and settlement agreement and awarded sole custody of the parties’ child to the father, and denied that branch of her motion which was to modify the joint custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and settlement agreement and to award her sole custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In determining whether a custody agreement should be modified, the paramount issue before the court is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a modification of custody is in the best interests of the child *(see Teuschler v Teuschler,*242 AD2d 289, 290 [1997]; *Kuncman v Kuncman,*188 AD2d 517, 518 [1992]). Courts making such determinations weigh several factors of varying degrees of importance, including, inter alia, (1) the original placement of the child, (2) the length of that placement, (3) the child’s desires, (4) the relative fitness of the parents, (5) the quality of the home environment, (6) the parental guidance given to the child, (7) the parent’s financial status, and (8) his or her ability to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development *(see Kuncman v Kuncman, supra).*Moreover, “[o]ne of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the other parent . . . , and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination” *(Young v Young,*212 AD2d 114, 122-123 [1995] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Because any custody determination necessarily depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the court’s findings *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]). Its findings “will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Kuncman v Kuncman, supra*at 518).

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the Supreme Court’s determination to modify the parties’ joint custody agreement and award sole custody to the father, with whom the child has resided since December 2000 as per the parties’ agreement, and not to her, has a sound and substantial basis *(see Barboto v Barboto,*264 AD2d 792 [1999]; *Alanna M. v Duncan M.,*204 AD2d 409 [1994]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
HALL v. TOREROS II, INC.

No. 187PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 31, 2007.

Howard F. Twiggs, Donald H. Beskind, Raleigh, Jesse H. Rigsby, IV, I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, for Theresa D. Hall.

Phillip J. Anthony, Christopher J. Derrenbacher, Raleigh, Kathrine E. Downing, for Toreros, II, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of May 2007 by NC Restaurant & Lodging Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 31st day of May 2007."
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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

Each of O. Victor Edelbrock, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
and Aristedes T. Feles, Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
of Edelbrock Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that:

(1)  The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 25, 2002 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

|                                                                    |  |                                                                         
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|O. VICTOR EDELBROCK                                                 |  | ARISTEDES T. FELES                                                      
|                                                                    |  |                                                                         
|O. Victor Edelbrock
Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer |  | Aristedes T. Feles
Vice-President of Finance and Chief
Financial Officer
|                                                                    |  |                                                                         
|November 8, 2002                                                    |  | November 8, 2002