alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements of Aegis Realty, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
     by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001043324
<NAME>                        Aegis Realty
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,728,050   
<SECURITIES>                                   0           
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,514,521  
<ALLOWANCES>                                   304,000     
<INVENTORY>                                    0           
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               587,109     
<PP&E>                                         111,042,804 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,404,617  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,639,328 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,322,644   
<BONDS>                                        18,544,242  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0           
<PREFERRED>                                    0           
<COMMON>                                       0           
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,045,011 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,639,328 
<SALES>                                        0           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,755,797  
<CGS>                                          0           
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0           
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,750,044   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             558,994     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,438,496   
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0           
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0           
<CHANGES>                                      0           
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,438,496   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .18         
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .18         
        


</TABLE>
WALSH v. TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH BD. OF ALDERMAN.

No. COA05-1478-2.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 6, 2007.

Certification Date November 26, 2007.

Appeal from New Hanover (05CVS210).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 

WARRANT AGREEMENT 
 Between 

 

			
	Materialise NV	 	
	Technologielaan 15	 	
	3001 Leuven	 	
	Belgium	 	
	Hereafter “the Company”	 	Hereafter “the Selected Participant”

 either or both of which may be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

 WHEREAS : 
  

	 	1.	The Company has adopted a warrant plan (“the Plan”) that provides for the grant of Warrants; 

  

	 	2.	The Plan was adopted at the meeting of the board of directors held on December 18, 2015; 

  

	 	3.	The Board of Directors of the Company has decided to grant Warrants to the Selected Participant; 

  

	 	4.	The Parties wish to enter into a written agreement whereby the conditions of the grant of the Warrants are defined; 

  

	 	5.	The Plan shall be an integral part of this Agreement. This Agreement will also serve as “Acceptance Form” for the purposes of the Plan. 


The Parties therefore agree to the following: 

Article 1. Grant of Warrants 
 In accordance with the terms
and conditions as stipulated in the Plan and this Agreement, the Company hereby grants a total of             . Warrants to the Selected Participant, who hereby accepts
            . Warrants which have as a result been granted. 
 Article 2. Date of the Offer

 The Date of the Offer, as defined in the Plan, is             . 

Article 3. Acceptance period 
 Acceptance must take place
in accordance with Section 4.3.2 of the Plan. In order to accept the warrants, the Selected Participant must complete, sign and return this Acceptance Form to the Company within
            calendar days after the date of the Offer. 
 Article 3. Exercise Price of
Warrants 
 The Exercise Price per Warrant is €             . 

Article 4: Term of the Warrants 
 The term of the Warrants
ends 10 years after the date of the decision to issue the Warrants. 
 Article 5: Vesting and Exercisability of the Warrants 

5.1 Vesting of the Warrants 
 The Warrants
will be vested according to the rules set forth in Section 4.3.4 of the Plan. 







 5.2 Exercisability of the Warrants 

The Warrants can be exercised as stipulated in the Plan, in particular in Section 4.6 (Exercise periods) and Section 4.11 (Exercise procedure). 

5.3 Number of Warrants that may be exercised during the Exercise Period 

The Warrants granted to a Selected Participant can only be exercised during an Exercise Period if they are vested as stipulated in Section 4.3.4 of the
Plan. 
 5.4 Termination of the employment agreement, consultant agreement or the director’s mandate 

In case of a termination of the employment agreement, the consultant agreement or the director’s mandate of the Selected Participant, only such Warrants
will be exercisable as set forth in section 4.7 of the Plan. 
 In witness thereof, Parties have signed this agreement 

on                      

 

					
	  
	 		  	  

	The Company	 		  	The Selected Participant
	Materialise NV, represented by	 		  	                                [name]
	Peter Leys	 		  	
	Authorized representative of the Board of Directors
The NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY v. Michael F. EASLEY, In his capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina.

No. 142P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Hugh Stevens, C. Amanda Martin, Raleigh, for News and Observer.

*509Andrew A. Vanore, Raleigh, for Easley.

W. Dale Talbert, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 641 S.E.2d 698.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 2nd day of April 2007 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 27th day of June 2007."

PARKER, C.J., recused.
WEST v. CONSOLIDATED DIESEL CO.

No. COA06-1282.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 364195, I.C. 367025).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed and remanded.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Devon HERRING.

No. 178P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Anne Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Herring.

H. Dean Bowman, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 626 S.E.2d 742.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 7th day of April 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of April 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the *184decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
Exhibit 23



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference

     o    in  the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-3ASR  No.  333-138706)  of
          Centerline Holding Company,
     o    in  the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-3ASR  No.  333-133118)  of
          Centerline Holding Company,
     o    in the Registration Statement (Form S-11 No. 333-126044) of Centerline
          Holding Company,
     o    in  the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-3MEF  No.  333-117650)  of
          Centerline Holding Company,
     o    in  the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-3/A  No.   333-120077)  of
          Centerline Holding Company,
     o    in the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  and  its  post  effective
          amendment on Form S-8/A No.  333-55957)  pertaining to the  Centerline
          Holding Company Incentive Share Option Plan,
     o    in the Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No.  333-54802) of Centerline
          Holding Company,
     o    in the Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-109078) of Centerline
          Holding Company,
     o    in the Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-74988) of Centerline
          Holding Company,
     o    in the Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-57384) of Centerline
          Holding Company,
     o    in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-110722) of Centerline
          Holding Company,
     o    in the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-3/A  and its post  effective
          amendment  on Form  POS AM 1 No.  333-111919)  of  Centerline  Holding
          Company,
     o    in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-149365) of Centerline
          Holding Company,

of our reports  dated  March 5, 2008,  relating  to the  consolidated  financial
statements and financial  statement  schedules of Centerline Holding Company and
subsidiaries   (which  report   expresses  an   unqualified   opinion  on  those
consolidated   financial  statement  schedules,   and  includes  an  explanatory
paragraph  relating to the  adoption of  Financial  Accounting  Standards  Board
Interpretation   No.  48,   ACCOUNTING  FOR  UNCERTAINTY  IN  INCOME  TAXES,  AN
INTERPRETATION  OF FASB STATEMENT NO. 109, in 2007),  and the  effectiveness  of
internal  control over  financial  reporting,  appearing in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of  Centerline  Holding  Company and  subsidiaries  for the year ended
December 31, 2007.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
March 5, 2008
STATE v. DALEUS.

No. COA06-1622.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Cumberland (01CRS61912).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7843
KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY; POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-2960) Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.19


 


 


 


February 17 2016


 


Jyoti Deshpande


16 Cavendish Drive


Edgware


Middlesex HA8 7NS


 


Re: Employment Agreements between Eros International
Plc (and its subsidiaries) and Jyoti Deshpande


 


Dear Jyoti


 


As per our mutual agreement, with
effect from April 2016, the following changes will be in effect with respect to the various service agreements:


 


		1.	Service Agreement dated 5th September 2013 between Eros International Plc and Jyoti Deshpande as Group CEO &
Managing Director.



 


Clause 7 – Remuneration


 


The Company shall pay the Executive during the continuation
of the Appointment a basic annual salary of $700,000. The salary will be denominated in US Dollars. The Executive's basic salary
shall accrue from day to day and will be payable in arrears by equal monthly installments on or about the last working day of each
month and shall be inclusive of any fees receivable by the Executive as a director of the Company.


 


All other clauses of the Service Agreement will remain
unchanged and binding to both parties.


 


		2.	Service Agreement dated 1st September 2013 between Eros International Limited and Jyoti Deshpande as CEO



 


The parties agree that this contract is mutually terminated
with effect from April 2016.


 


		3.	Service Agreement dated 29th August 2013 between Eros International Media Limited and Jyoti Deshpande as Executive
Director.



 


The parties agree that there is no change to this service
agreement other than the remuneration changes as approved by the Board of Eros International Media Limited from time to time. The
current remuneration under his agreement is INR 9,583,200.


 


		4.	Remuneration to Jyoti Deshpande from Eros Digital FZ LLC.



 


For executive services rendered to Eros Digital FZ LLC,
it will pay Jyoti Deshpande a gross basic annual salary of $100,000 with effect from April 2016. Jyoti Deshpande will be appointed
on the board of Eros Digital FZ LLC. The parties will execute any further documents as required to give effect to this.


 


 


 


 


 


Eros International Plc.


Registration No. 116107C


Registered Office Address: 15-19 Athol Street,
Douglas, Isle of Man 1M1 1LB, British Isles


Correspondence Address: 13 Manchester Square,
London, W1U 3PP, UK


Phone: 02079352727. Fax: 02079355656


 




    


     

    

 


 


This along with the individual service agreements is the complete
understanding of the parties and supersedes all other arrangements.


 


 


Best Regards


 


 


 


 


 


Eros International Plc.


Registration No. 116107C


Registered Office Address: 15-19 Athol Street,
Douglas, Isle of Man 1M1 1LB, British Isles


Correspondence Address: 13 Manchester Square,
London, W1U 3PP, UK


Phone: 02079352727. Fax: 02079355656
SPRAKE v. LECHE.

No. COA06-1690.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Orange (03CVS985).

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
 <MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                          <C>                <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS              6-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JAN-31-1998        JAN-31-1998       JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 MAY-24-1997        AUG-16-1997       NOV-08-1997
<CASH>                            64,152             39,794           117,375
<SECURITIES>                           0                  0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                     25,265             24,105           109,912
<ALLOWANCES>                           0                  0                 0
<INVENTORY>                      624,356            629,631         1,200,557
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 763,910            749,959         1,561,661
<PP&E>                         1,658,881          1,643,688         2,659,164
<DEPRECIATION>                   660,886            679,480           717,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,787,894          1,742,109         4,573,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            542,208            499,465         1,165,813
<BONDS>                          558,089            525,213         1,900,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0                  0                 0
<PREFERRED>                            0                  0                 0
<COMMON>                             582                580               880
<OTHER-SE>                       591,555            614,986         1,284,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,787,894          1,742,109         4,573,261
<SALES>                        1,193,936          2,150,951         3,611,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1,193,936          2,150,951         3,611,323
<CGS>                            838,515          1,506,871         2,534,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    320,428            568,279           945,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0                  0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0                  0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               136,007             23,577            46,440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   21,386             52,224            84,846
<INCOME-TAX>                       8,127             19,845            34,190
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               13,259             32,379            50,656
<DISCONTINUED>                         0                  0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0                  0           (91,210)
<CHANGES>                              0                  0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      13,259             32,379           (40,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.25               0.61             (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.24               0.58             (0.64)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Tennessee corporation, Plaintiff,

v. CARL B. LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant, No. 00-1451 v. PAMELA J. JACOBS, as Guardian of Carl B. Little, III, Defendant-Appellee, and CARL B. LITTLE, III, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-549-2) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 22, 2000 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL Elliot G. Hicks, Nicholas P. Mooney, II, ALLEN, GUTHRIE & McHUGH, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Webster J.Arceneaux, III, LEWIS, FRIEDBERG, GLASSER, CASEY & ROLLINS, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from an interpleader action filed in district court by Provident Accident Insurance Company. The subject res was insurance proceeds that accrued upon the untimely death of Carl B. Little II, the policy holder. The two claimants of the proceeds were Carl B. Little ("Little"), the father of the deceased, and Pamela J. Jacobs, the ex-wife of the deceased and guardian of the deceased's minor child, Carl B. Little III ("Trey"). 1 Little appeals the district court's order granting Jacobs' motion for summary judgment and awarding the proceeds to Jacobs as Trey's legal guardian.2This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Higgins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no materialfacts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). All reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. See Cole v. Cole , 633 F.2d 1083, 1092 (4th Cir. 1980).

_________________________________________________________________ 1 1 Neither party disputes that the insurance proceeds are for the benefit of the deceased's minor son, Trey. 2 2 The parties agreed to submit the appeal on the briefs. 2We have reviewed the submitted record and briefs, as well as the pertinent case law on this matter, and are persuaded that the judgmentof the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Little v. Jacobs , No. CA-99-549-2 (S.D.W. Va., March 17, 2000). AFFIRMED 3 t
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          35,238
<SECURITIES>                                     9,639
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,570
<INVENTORY>                                        615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,607
<PP&E>                                          20,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,134
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,095
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,742
<SALES>                                         34,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,565
<CGS>                                            5,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (294)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                       952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.08
        

</TABLE>