alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GAILEY v. TRIANGLE BILLIARDS, et al.

No. 611P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Jerry B. Grimes, Lexington, for Triangle Billiards, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 635 S.E.2d 482.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of December 2006 by Plaintiff to dismiss "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Armond Perry, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 816]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered January 16, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree *1353(Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus has failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Scott,*15 AD3d 883 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 856 [2005]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. Contrary to the contention of defendant, it is not necessary that he “ acknowledge [ ] committing every element of the pleaded-to offense . . ., or provide[ ] a factual exposition for each element of the pleaded-to offense” *(People v Seeber, 4*NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; *see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; *Lopez,*71 NY2d at 666 n 2). Here, the record establishes that defendant answered questions specifically addressing the facts and circumstances of the crime, thus establishing that he intentionally caused the death of the victim by shooting him *(see People v Kemp,*288 AD2d 635, 636 [2001]).

We also reject defendant’s contention that the photo arrays were unduly suggestive. There is no evidence that the attention of any witness “was ‘drawn to defendant’s photo in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection’ ” *(People v Cunningham,*15 AD3d 945, 945 [2005], *lv denied 4*NY3d 829 [2005]) or that the individuals portrayed in the photo arrays were so distinct that there was “a ‘substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification’ ” *(People v Beason,*252 AD2d 975, 975 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 980 [1998]; *see People v Rodriguez,*17 AD3d 1127, 1128-1129 [2005]). Finally, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
ABDO v. M.B. KAHN CONST. CO.

No. COA07-454.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 20, 2007.

Certification Date December 10, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (06CVS685).

Cases reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 Annual Report of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell Jackson, Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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




Dated: /s/ June 2, 2003           By: /s/ Russell Jackson
       -------------------            --------------------------------
                                      Russell Jackson
                                      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer






                                       60
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board of Directors


NorWesTech, Inc.


Seattle, Washington





We consent to the use of our audit report dated September 26, 2011, on the consolidated financial statements of NorWesTech, Inc. (formerly Pacific Biomarkers, Inc.) (the “Company”), for the filing with and attachment to the Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, and for incorporation by reference in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-23497, 333-109795 and 333-153705).





/s/ PMB Helin Donovan, LLPPMB Helin Donovan, LLPCERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSSan Francisco, CaliforniaSeptember 27, 2011
EXHIBIT 15.1





ClubCorp,  Inc.
Dallas,  Texas

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration  Statement  Nos.  33-89818,  33-96568, 333-08041 and 333-57107

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness  of the use therein of our report dated April 30, 1999, related to our
review  of  interim  financial  information.


Pursuant  to  Rule  436(c)  under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered  part  of  a  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  the  Act.




                                   KPMG  LLP



Dallas,  Texas
May  6,  1999
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                       INKINE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.



           Under Section 105 of the New York Business Corporation Law

          IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:

          FIRST: The name of the corporation is InKine  Pharmaceutical  Company,
     Inc. (the "Corporation"). The original name under which the Corporation was
     formed was Panax Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.

          SECOND:  The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed
     by the Department of State of New York on May 27, 1993.

          THIRD:  Article FOURTH of the aforesaid  Certificate of  Incorporation
     contains a  typographical  error  referring to "Section  805-A of the BCL,"
     which was originally intended to state, "Section 805 of the BCL."

         FOURTH:  The said Article FOURTH is hereby corrected to read:

         The  aggregate  number of shares with the  corporation  shall have the
         authority to issue is: (a) Seventy-Five Million (75,000,000) shares of
         Common  Stock,  all of which  shall have a par value of One  Hundredth
         ($0.0001)  of a cent;  and (b)  Five  Million  (5,000,000)  shares  of
         Preferred  Stock, all of which shall have a par value of One Hundredth
         ($0.0001) of a cent.  The Board of Directors is  authorized to file an
         amendment to the certificate of incorporation of the corporation under
         Section 805 of the BCL setting forth the  designations  of each series
         and the variations in the relative rights, preferences and limitations
         of each  series  of  preferred  stock  without  further  action by the
         shareholders of the corporation.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have  subscribed  this  certificate  of
correction and hereby affirm it as true under the penalties of perjury.

Dated:   June 17, 2004                 InKine Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.


                                       LEONARD S. JACOB, M.D., Ph.D.
                                       -----------------------------
                                       By:      Leonard S. Jacob, M.D., Ph. D.
                                       Title:   Chairman of the Board, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer

                                       ROBERT F. APPLE
                                       --------------------------
                                       By:      Robert F. Apple
                                       Title:   Secretary and Chief Operating
                                                and Financial Officer
#### Timothy Bush, Respondent, v Andrew Ozogar, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 453]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), entered January 13, 2004. The judgment, inter alia, granted plaintiff a prescriptive easement.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action commenced by plaintiff pursuant to RPAPL article 15 against an adjoining residential land*1408owner, Supreme Court properly declared that plaintiff “has a prescriptive easement for parking and for access between the [parties’ respective] houses,” and further properly directed defendant to remove a fence that interfered with that easement. Plaintiff met his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that his use of defendant’s land was adverse, open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period *(see*RPAPL 311; *Di Leo v Pecksto Holding Corp.,*304 NY 505, 512 [1952]; *D.D.R. Realty Corp. v Library Lane Assoc., LLC,*16 AD3d 541 [2005]; *Allen v Farrell,*266 AD2d 857, 858 [1999], *appeal dismissed*95 NY2d 777 [2000]). The court further properly rejected defendant’s contention that an easement by prescription cannot be recognized because an express grant of easement would be in violation of the law *(see generally City of New York v Wilson & Co.,*278 NY 86, 97 [1938], *rearg denied*278 NY 702 [1938]; *Burbank v Fay,*65 NY 57, 66 [1875]). Contrary to his contention, defendant failed to establish that plaintiff’s use of the driveway violates a municipal ordinance. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 769/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 769/2013 of 8 August 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 769/2013                     

# of 8 August 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 8 August 2013.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JESSE FARIAS

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00234

- CR

Appeal from the

379TH Judicial District Court

Of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2021CR9469 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF J ULY 2024.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, J J.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 930/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 930/2013 of 26 September 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 930/2013                     

# of 26 September 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 26 September 2013.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation, Tax Identification No. 56-0205520 v. Wendell Corey MALCOLM and Callabridge/Granite, LLC.

No. 379A06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 22, 2007.

Noelle E. Wooten, Charlotte, James H. Kelly, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Callabridge/Granite, LLC.

James E. Scarbrough, Concord, for Malcolm.

John W. Francisco, Irwin W. Hankins, III, Charlotte, for Duke Energy Corporation.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 19th day of January 2007 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 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 22nd day of January 2007."
# L_2015090DE.01002301.xml

| 2.4.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 90/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 90/23

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 391/2013 der Kommission vom 3. Mai 2013 zur Festlegung einer gemeinsamen Gebührenregelung für Flugsicherungsdienste

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 128 vom 9. Mai 2013
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 128 vom 9. Mai 2013

Seite 33, Artikel 3 Absatz 1 Satz 1:

anstatt:

„Unbeschadet der Anwendung der Grundsätze von Artikel 14 und 15 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 550/2004 und vorbehaltlich der Bewertung gemäß Absatz 2 können die Mitgliedstaaten vor Beginn eines Bezugszeitraums oder in begründeten Fällen während des Bezugszeitraums durch Beschluss feststellen, dass einige oder alle ihrer Flugsicherungsdienste für den An- und Abflug oder CNS-, MET- und AIS-Dienste Marktbedingungen unterliegen.“

muss es heißen:

„Unbeschadet der Anwendung der Grundsätze von Artikel 14 und 15 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 550/2004 und vorbehaltlich der Bewertung gemäß Absatz 2 können die Mitgliedstaaten vor Beginn eines Bezugszeitraums oder in begründeten Fällen während des Bezugszeitraums entscheiden, dass einige oder alle ihrer Flugsicherungsdienste für den An- und Abflug oder CNS-, MET- und AIS-Dienste Marktbedingungen unterliegen.“

Seite 38, Artikel 13 Absatz 4 Unterabsatz 2:

anstatt:

„Falls in einem Jahr n die tatsächliche Zahl der Dienstleistungseinheiten um mehr als 2 % unter der im Leistungsplan für das Jahr n getroffenen Prognose liegt, werden die festgestellten Kosten frühestens ab dem Jahr n + 2 um höchstens 70 % des Einnahmeverlusts der betreffenden Flugsicherungsorganisation(en) verringert, der 2 % der Differenz zwischen den tatsächlichen und den prognostizierten Dienstleistungseinheiten in Bezug auf die festgestellten Kosten im Leistungsplan überschreitet.“

muss es heißen:

„Falls in einem Jahr n die tatsächliche Zahl der Dienstleistungseinheiten um mehr als 2 % unter der im Leistungsplan für das Jahr n getroffenen Prognose liegt, werden die festgestellten Kosten frühestens ab dem Jahr n + 2 um höchstens 70 % des Einnahmeverlusts der betreffenden Flugsicherungsorganisation(en) erhöht, der 2 % der Differenz zwischen den tatsächlichen und den prognostizierten Dienstleistungseinheiten in Bezug auf die festgestellten Kosten im Leistungsplan überschreitet.“

---
<PAGE>
                                                           EXHIBIT 23(a)

                     INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Nos. 333-34561, 333-34587, 333-34589, 333-34591, 333-34593, 333-34683,
333-35689, 333-47911, 333-51081, 333-74463, 333-74465, 333-32112 and
333-39972 of Solutia Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-75812, 333-89818, and 333-99705 of Solutia Inc. on Form S-3 of our
report dated March 15, 2004 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes explanatory paragraphs referring to Solutia Inc.'s filing for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code,
substantial doubt about Solutia Inc.'s ability to continue as a going
concern and changes in accounting principles), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of Solutia Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
March 15, 2004
IN RE Q.P.W.

No. COA06-1120

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Durham (04J245).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE QUARTER ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                               NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                 FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                                         6,516,700
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    224,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     338,800
<INVENTORY>                                                      518,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               7,270,000
<PP&E>                                                           166,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    41,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 8,819,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            991,400
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                          100
<COMMON>                                                          76,800
<OTHER-SE>                                                     7,710,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   8,819,100
<SALES>                                                          115,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 267,800
<CGS>                                                            113,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  2,325,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  10,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                10,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (1,986,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (1,986,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1,986,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (.26)
        

</TABLE>