alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
James WILLIAMS v. Christopher VONDERAU.

No. 18A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2007.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 181 N.C.App. 18, 638 S.E.2d 644 (2007), dismissing as moot an appeal from an order entered 25 August 2005 by Judge Shelly S. Holt in District Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 April 2007.

James E. Williams, pro se, plaintiff-appellee.

Bruce Mason and Associates, by James F. Rutherford and Bruce A. Mason, Wilmington, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

On the issue of whether more than one incident of harassment is required before a trial court can enter a civil no-contact order under N.C.G.S. § 50C-1(6), the members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed *145without precedential value. *See State v. Harrison,* 360 N.C. 394, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); *Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co.,* 356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

The decision of the Court of Appeals that an appeal related to a civil no-contact order is moot once the order expires is reversed. *See In re A.K.,* 360 N.C. 449, 628 S.E.2d 753 (2006).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         We have issued our report dated March 24, 2000, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of PopMail.com,
inc. (formerly Cafe Odyssey, Inc.) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended January 2,
2000. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of PopMail.com, inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-80241,
File No. 333-85243, File No. 333-88199, File No. 333-93317, File No. 333-96109,
and File No. 333-32232) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-62729 and File No.
333-62747).


                                                          /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 3, 2000
Exhibit 32.2












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 Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Driessnack,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and







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













/s/Robert J.
Driessnack


Robert J.
Driessnack,


Chief
Financial Officer







February
25, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17060]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21705; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-21]


Modification of Legal Description of the Class E Airspace; 
Columbia Regional Airport, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule which modifies the legal description of the Class E Airspace at 
Columbia Regional Airport, MO.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 27, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64216; telephone: 
(816) 321-2121.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on July 21, 2005 
(70 FR 41950). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
if no adverse notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment was 
received within the comment period, the regulation would become 
effective on October 27, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and 
thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on August 15, 2005.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-17060 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4921-13-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Covad Communications Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
A. Richman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                                          COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.

                                        By:       /s/ MARK A. RICHMAN
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                      MARK A. RICHMAN
                                                EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
                                                  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Date: March 20, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED 
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2248250
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         4632093
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    4505829
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          201800
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            204852
<LOANS>                                       34433080
<ALLOWANCE>                                      93625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                47041141
<DEPOSITS>                                    34464771
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             262881
<LONG-TERM>                                    6327415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3317
<OTHER-SE>                                     5982757
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                47041141
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                657539
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               86208
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                65134
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               808881
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              365659
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87245
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           355977
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     5000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 284887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 120058
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      120058
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79209
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .02
<LOANS-NON>                                     232000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 92249
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     3624
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                93625
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          88625
        


</TABLE>
csgs-ex1025bf_224.htm



Exhibit 10.25BF

 

 

SIXTY-SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CSG SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

 

 

This Sixty-second Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CSG”), and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Customer”).  CSG and Customer entered into that certain Amended and Restated CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement dated February 9, 2009 (CSG document no. 2298875), as amended (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  The effective date of this Amendment is the date last signed below (the "Effective Date").  Further, upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

 

Now, therefore, CSG and Customer agree to the following as of the Effective Date:

 

1.    The parties wish to extend the Agreement through February 28, 2015, in order to finalize terms for a longer extension and therefore Section 1.2 entitled Term shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

"1.2  Term.  Unless earlier terminated pursuant to Sections 6.1, this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and remain in effect thereafter for an initial term expiring on February 28, 2015 (“Initial Term”)." 

 

THIS AMENDMENT is executed on the day and year last signed below to be effective as of the Effective Date.

 


		
	
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC (“CUSTOMER”)

 

By: Charter Communications, Inc., its Manager
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)

	
 

 

By: /s/ Michael Ciszek
	
 

 

By:  /s/ Bret C. Griess

	
 

Title:  VP Billing  & Collections
	
 

Title:  COO

	
 

Name:  Michael Ciszek
	
 

Name:  Bret C. Griess

	
 

Date:  1/29/15
	
 

Date:  1-30-15
#### In the Matter of Don W. Blevins, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[799 NYS2d 691]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1991 and maintains a law office in Michigan where he *696is also admitted. Respondent was suspended in 1998 for attorney registration delinquency *(Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a,*255 AD2d 827 [1998]) and was subsequently reinstated in 1999 *(Matter of Blevins,*266 AD2d 696 [1999]).

Petitioner charges respondent with having engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; conduct adversely reflecting upon his fitness as an attorney; failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a; and failure to cooperate with petitioner. As the result of respondent’s failure to file an answer to the petition of charges, petitioner now moves for a default judgment. Respondent opposes the motion and submits a proposed answer to the petition. Initially, we note that respondent does not provide a sufficient explanation for his default in filing a timely answer. However, the decision to grant a default judgment requires a review of the proof submitted by petitioner in order to determine whether to find respondent guilty of some or all of the charges *(see Matter of Farrington,*270 AD2d 710 [2000]).

In mitigation, respondent claims that he has not been dishonest or fraudulent in his conduct in that he was unaware that his initial attempt to pay his delinquent registration fees in 1999 resulted in the return of his check for insufficient funds. We note that respondent has recently registered and paid all biennial registration fees due and owing.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that petitioner’s motion should be granted, respondent should be found guilty of the charges set forth in the petition except insofar as it alleges a violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]), and he should be censured.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is granted, and respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct as set forth in the charges and specifications of the petition except insofar as charge I alleges a violation of DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]); and it is further ordered that respondent is censured.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/24/96 TENTH CIRCUIT LARRY A. BRYAN,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-3415 v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3471) CARLA J. STOVALL, (D. Kan.)

Respondent - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner Larry Bryan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition for habeas corpus relief from his state court conviction while his appeal from that2

conviction is still pending in state court. Thus, the district court dismissed Mr. Bryan’s action without prejudice in order to avoid interfering with the state court proceedings. The district court then denied Mr. Bryan leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We have reviewed the record and have determined that Mr. Bryan has failed to make an argument on the law or the facts sufficient to warrant granting him leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Thus, Mr. Bryan’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is DISMISSED.

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 670/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 670/2014 of 18 June 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 670/2014                     

# of 18 June 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, 18 June 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.
# **Exhibit32.1**

# **OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the Chief Executive Officer of Western SizzlinCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2007 and the financial statements contained therein, fullycomply with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q and thefinancial statements thereto fairly present, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of June 30,2007, and the period then ended.
| /s/ Sardar Biglari |   | Date: August 14, 2007 |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------|

 

 

----
STATE v. McDOUGAL.

No. COA08-9.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from Cabarrus (03CRS15545, 03CRS15553, 03CRS15555).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2014 of 28 March 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 325/2014                     

# of 28 March 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, 28 March 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.
----

(2004/C 33 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0617/03

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject:   Article in the Financial Times of 20 February 2003 on differences of opinion within the Commission on competition in the wholesale broadband internet market in the EU

With reference to an article appearing on the front page of the Financial Times of 20 February 2003, ‘Brussels chiefs clash over internet’:

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

----

(1)  COM(2002)695 final.

----