alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 14

- 00 964

- C V

Style: In re TMX Finance of Texas, Inc; TitleMax of Texas, Inc.; and TMX

Finance LLC

Date motion filed * : Dece mber 8 , 2014

Type of motion s : Unopposed M otion for Extension of Time to File Response to

Mandamus Petition

Part ies filing motion s : Real Part ies in Interest

Document to be filed: Response

Ordered that motion i s :

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 16 , 2014

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Although relators did not include the reporter’s record because they stated in their

verification that no evidentiary testimony or exhibits were submitted at the hearing,

the RPIs state that this record is needed for resolution of the petition and that the

parties have requested it on an expedited basis and expected it early last week. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.4(e), 52.7(a)(2). Accordingly, t he real parties in interests’ motion

for a 1

- week extension of time to file a response to the mandamus petition is granted

until December 16 , 2014. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(2),10.5(b)(1).

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: December 16, 2014
STATE of North Carolina v. Elim GOMEZ, aka Teofilo Castro, and Olga Hurtado.

No. 103P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Elim Gomez, Pro Se.

Patrick C. Wooten, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Hurtado.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th day of March 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina 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 11th day of June 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,233
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    159,387
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             572
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               562
<LOANS>                                        235,832
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (1,434)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 422,380
<DEPOSITS>                                     317,288
<SHORT-TERM>                                    48,225
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,313
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,182
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 422,380
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,681
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,955
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,636
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,862
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,692
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,944
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      123
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    795
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         795
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.52
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,172
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   351
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,311
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       (1)
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,434
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,434
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      of Tegal Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas R. Mika, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/   Thomas
                R. MikaChief
                Executive Officer and PresidentNovember
                14, 2007




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Tegal Corporation, a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
      2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,
      Christine Hergenrother, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
      my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/   Christine
                HergenrotherChief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                14, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Lauren P. Silvernail, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                         
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Lauren P. Silvernail                                                                
|                       |  |  |  | Lauren P. Silvernail                                                                    
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Chief AccountingOfficer & Vice President, Corporate Development
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONS OFPERIODIC REPORT**

#### ** **

I,John R. Serino, President and Chief Executive Officer of Encision Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

·                  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

·                  the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.

 
| Dated: | November 13,  2009      |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |                         |
|   | /s/  John R. Serino          |
|   |                         |
|   | John  R. Serino              |
|   | Principal  Executive Officer |

 

I,Marcia McHaffie, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of Encision Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

·                  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

·                  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.

 
| Dated: | November 13,  2009                                                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                      |
|   | /s/  Marcia McHaffie                                                      |
|   |                                                                      |
|   | Marcia  McHaffie                                                          |
|   | Controller,  Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Edgar E. EDWARDS.

No. 76P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Russell Hollers, III, Durham, for Edgar Edwards.

*364Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 6th day of February 2007 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 8th day of March 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of February 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."
# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1310/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1310/2014 of 8 October 2014 on the provisional system of instalments on contributions            to cover the administrative expenditures of the Single Resolution Board during the provisional period (Text with EEA relevance)            (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1310/2014                     

# of 8 October 2014

# on the provisional system of instalments on contributions to cover the administrative expenditures of the Single Resolution                        Board during the provisional period                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2361 of 14 September 2017 on the final system of contributions to the administrative                                 expenditures of the Single Resolution Board.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

s0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

139683 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139683 

 COA: 291022 

Wayne CC: 89-005295 

GERALD PITTMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
** **

**Exhibit32.2**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

                Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MarkJ. Parrell, Chief Financial Officer of Equity Residential, general partner ofERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 

 

 

 

 

 
| /s/    | Mark J. Parrell                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Mark J. Parrell                       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |
|   | of Registrant’s General  Partner |
|   | November 7, 2007                      |

 

----
EZURUIKE v. SHAW.

No. S08F1498.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 6, 2008.

Judgments Affirmed without opinion (Supreme Court Rule 59).
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 417 

For the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA 

4 MARQUEZ RICO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligi8 ble for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

9 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma10 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

11 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 

12 adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 417 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Claudia Marquez 

2 Rico enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have 

4 entered and remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, 

5 shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

13 this Act. 

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Claudia Marquez Rico, the Secretary of State 

17 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

18 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

19 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

20 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

21 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 

22 if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

23 made available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

24 under section 202(e) of such Act. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 417 IS

1 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

2 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

3 parents, brothers, and sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico 

4 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 

5 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
MOORE v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE.

No. 330A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 29, 2008.

Robert O. Crawford, III, Aaron C. Hemmings, Raleigh, for Moore.

George L. Simpson, III, Raleigh, for Nationwide.

Jerome P. Trehy, Jr., Raleigh, Jesse H. Rigsby, IV, for NCATL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of September 2008 by Asso. of Defense Attorneys 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 29th day of September 2008."
GEOMET OPERATING COMPANY, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. CNX GAS COMPANY LLC, Respondent.

Record No. 071212.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

June 20, 2007.

Before Chief Justice HASSELL and Justices LEMONS.

Upon a Petition under Code § 8.01-626

This matter is before the Court upon a petition for review pursuant to Code § 8.01-626.

GeoMet Operating Company, Inc. ("GeoMet") and Pocahontas Mining Limited Liability Company ("PMC") filed an action for declaratory judgment to interpret a Coalseam Gas Lease agreement (the "Lease") between PMC and CNX as successor in interest. CNX filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties, particularly with reference to the Lease. Subsequently PMC and GeoMet amended their pleadings to allege fraud in the inducement of the lease, mistake, and breach of contract, and requesting rescission and/or reformation of the lease.

The trial court granted summary judgment to CNX on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment and entered an order on May 23, 2007, which is the subject of this petition for review pursuant to Code § 8.01-626.

It is clear from the record that the order of May 23, 2007, is not a final appealable order. The record reveals extended discussion between counsel and the trial court over the potential for interlocutory appeal of the order under the special provisions of Code § 8.01-670.1. Furthermore, the matter remains on the docket for further proceedings on PMC's and GeoMet's amended pleadings alleging fraud in the inducement and breach of contract. Nonetheless, the trial court required bond and other conditions *140of PMC and GeoMet in order to suspend execution of the order of May 23, 2007.

The order of May 23, 2007, contains injunctive relief that was not requested in CNX's counterclaim. Furthermore, the record does not reflect that the trial court considered the factors necessary for the issuance of temporary injunctive relief. *Black & White Cars, Inc. v. Groome Transportation,*247 Va. 426, 431, 442 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1994), *Wright v. Castles,*232 Va. 218, 224, 349 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1986). Additionally, the order of May 23, 2007, does not comply with Code § 8.01-624 requiring that the duration of temporary injunctions be fixed. Neither does the order comply with Code § 8.01-631 regarding the posting of bond by the party obtaining injunctive relief, namely CNX.

Accordingly, the provisions of the trial court's order of May 23, 2007, granting injunctive relief and conditions of suspension, namely paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of the order, are vacated. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

This order shall be certified to the Circuit Court of Buchanan County.
# CE2004088EN.01031001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/310 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/310

---

(2004/C 88 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Gambling on the Net

Subject:

As the Commission acknowledged in its answer to Written Question E-2885/01 (1), internet gambling activities are regulated differently across the Member States giving rise to internal market barriers that deserve consideration.

1

Given that internet gambling activities are cross-border in nature and that national lottery operators have warned of the need for this issue to be dealt with at European level, what measures has the Commission taken in this respect? Has the Commission examined the need for harmonisation in this area, and what form it should take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

(3 March 2003)

As regards internet gambling, a number of Member States are adjusting their laws on gambling activities or introducing new laws to regulate such information society services. These new laws are notifiable under Directive 98/48/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2). The Commission would, therefore, wish to reassure the Honourable Member that, on the basis of this mechanism, it is monitoring developments in this field and ensuring that such new national laws do not result in unjustified Internal Market barriers taking into account the specificity of these services as recognised by the Court of Justice's jurisprudence. However, the Commission does not consider that harmonisation is required in this area at the current time.

2

---

(1)  OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 211.

1

(2)  OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.

2

---