alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Tommie PARKS.

No. 339P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Daniel F. Read, Durham, for Tommie Parks.

Diane Martin Pomper, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of July 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *570pursuant 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 9th day of October 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-3-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JAN-3-1999
<CASH>                                         106,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    161,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               452,243
<PP&E>                                      13,273,940
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,574,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,939,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,590,011
<BONDS>                                        755,878
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,001
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,758,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,939,988
<SALES>                                      6,932,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,932,891
<CGS>                                        1,897,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,689,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,706,582)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,706,582)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.84)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.1





AMENDMENT TO THE
FIBROCELL SCIENCE, INC. 2009 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


WHEREAS, Fibrocell Science, Inc. (the “Company”), maintains the Fibrocell Science, Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) is authorized to amend the Plan from time to time, provided that such amendment shall be contingent on the approval of the Company’s shareholders (“Shareholder Approval”) when such approval is required pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or stock exchange requirements; and 


WHEREAS, the Board desires to increase the number of shares of common stock of the Company reserved for issuance under the Plan (the “Share Increase”) and to include an annual limit on the number of shares underlying awards made to any one participant under the Plan in any calendar year (the “Annual Limit”); and


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Plan, in order to effect each of these desired changes, Shareholder Approval must be obtained; and


WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to provide for the Share Increase and the Annual Limit as set forth in this Amendment to the Plan (the “Amendment”), subject to timely Shareholder Approval.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Plan, subject to timely Shareholder Approval, as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 5(a) of the Plan, subject to timely Shareholder Approval, is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“Shares Authorized.  The aggregate number of shares of Company Stock that may be issued under the Plan is 7,600,000 shares, subject to adjustment as described in subsection (d) below.”


		
	2.
	A new Section 5(e) is, subject to timely Shareholder Approval, hereby added to the Plan to read in its entirety as follows:




“Limitations. In accordance with the requirements under Section 162(m) of the Code, subject to adjustment as described in subsection (d) above, the maximum number of shares of Company Stock underlying Grants that may be granted during a calendar year to any individual Participant shall be 1,500,000 shares of Company Stock.”


		
	3.
	Except as specifically provided in and modified by this Amendment, the Plan is in all other respects hereby ratified and confirmed and references to the Plan shall be deemed to refer to the Plan as modified by this Amendment, contingent upon obtaining timely Shareholder Approval.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment to the Fibrocell Science, Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, as of April 15, 2016. 
 
	
			
	FIBROCELL SCIENCE, INC.

	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ David Pernock

	Name:  
Its:
	 
	David Pernock
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Exhibit 32.1


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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic
report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and that information  contained in
this periodic report fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial
condition and results of operations of Ridgewood Electric Power Trust IV.

Date:  October 14, 2004       /s/ Robert E. Swanson
                             --------------------------------
                             Robert E. Swanson
                             Chief Executive Officer

Date:  October 14, 2004       /s/ Christopher I. Naunton
                             --------------------------------
                             Christopher I. Naunton
                             Chief Financial Officer
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 824/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 824/2014 of 29 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 824/2014                     

# of 29 July 2014

# 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, 29 July 2014.

*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.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                           of Chief Executive Officer


I,  Richard  E.  Aho,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of Mile  Marker
International,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  have  executed  this  certification  in
connection  with the filing with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission of the
Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30,
2006 (the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 3rd
day of November, 2006.


/s/  Richard E. Aho
-------------------------------------
      Richard E. Aho
President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2023112EN.01004701.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

---

Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Food Intolerance)

(Case T-64/23)

(2023/C 112/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aesculap AG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeneas GmbH & Co. KG (Wendelsheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark AESKUCARE Food Intolerance — Application No 17 918 102

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2022 in Case R 21/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. SIZEMORE.

No. COA07-1489.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Macon (05CRS50962, 05CRS50963, 05CRS50964).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>






                                                                    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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, I, Paul E. Muellner, Chief Financial Officer, 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operation of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.


                                                          /s/ Paul E. Muellner
                                                          --------------------
                                                          Paul E. Muellner


November 8, 2002
SCWC-13-0000182 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

KILAKILA ʻO HALEAKALᾹ, 

Petitioner/Plaintiff/Appellant-Appellant, 

vs. 

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI and DAVID LASSNER, in his official capacity 

as Chancellor of the University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa; BOARD OF 

LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SUZANNE CASE, in her capacity as the 

Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources; and 

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Respondents/Defendants/Appellees-Appellees. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-13-0000182; CIVIL NO. 10-1-2510) 

ORDER OF CORRECTION 

(By: Pollack, J.) 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court, 

filed on October 6, 2016, is corrected as follows: 

 On page 28, footnote 28, line 1, insert at the 

beginning of the footnote, “Under HRS § 91-14(f),” and delete 

“The.” 

 On page 29, footnote 29, line 1, replace “The limited” 

with “A statutory.” 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000182

27-OCT-2016

10:02 AM
2 

 On page 29, footnote 29, line 2, replace “27” with 

“28.” 

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all 

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of this 

change. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 27, 2016. 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

Associate Justice
# C_2023179EN.01006402.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/64

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — VN v Commission

(Case T-159/23)

(2023/C 179/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VN (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold that the present action is admissible and well founded;
  consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the present action is admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2022 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification on 10 June 2022, thus leading to a deduction from his salary of one calendar day; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2022 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification on 10 June 2022, thus leading to a deduction from his salary of one calendar day;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2022;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in respect of non-material damage suffered by the applicant amounting to two months of pay, including allowances; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in respect of non-material damage suffered by the applicant amounting to two months of pay, including allowances;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of independence of the medical officer who carried out the consultation on 10 June 2022 and breach of the duty of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of independence of the medical officer who carried out the consultation on 10 June 2022 and breach of the duty of impartiality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and force majeure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and force majeure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      14,715,325
<SECURITIES>                                 1,577,396
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,336,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          678,738
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,657,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,336,281
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,635
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                   112,038
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,038
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,038
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00389

- CV

T. WILLIAM MCINTYRE APPELLANT

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATION AL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FO R NEW CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005

- 1, CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, L LC, CARRINGTON FORECLOSU RE SERVICES, LLC F/K/A ATLANTIC & PACIFIC FORECLOSURE SERVICES, L.L.C, HOLLY CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, CHRISTOPHER K. BAXTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ATTORNEY, MARINOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C., GARY MA RINOSCI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ATTOR NEY, TOM CROFT, PETE R C. SMART

, AND CRAIN, CATON & JAMES, P.C. APPELLEES

------------

FROM THE 158TH DISTR ICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2012

- 20446

- 1582 ------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

On December 10, 2014

, and December 30, 2014, we notified appellant in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $1 9 5 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $1 9 5 filing fee. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 16 , 20 13

, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 22 , 2015

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals

, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- district Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Aug. 16 , 20 13 ) (listing fees in courts of appeals).
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

# **OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 63 – 1350, the Chief Operating Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of Austins Steaks and Saloon, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertifies that the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 and thefinancial statements contained therein, fully comply with the requirements ofSections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q and the financial statements theretofairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 14, 2003 |              |
|-----------------|-------------------|
|            | /s/ Robyn B. Mabe |

 

24

----