alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-3639

_____________________________

ANTONIO L. BUCKMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

Ysleta W. McDonald, Judge.

March 29, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,600,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,317,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,700,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,950,399
<PP&E>                                         531,922
<DEPRECIATION>                                (187,219)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,952,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,884,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,433
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,049,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,952,348
<SALES>                                     48,732,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,732,391
<CGS>                                       41,249,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,683,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             301,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (434,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,986
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (393,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (393,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)


</TABLE>
STATE v. Philip MORRIS, et al.

No. 2P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 10, 2008.

Michael T. Medford, Judson A. Welborn, Raleigh, Alexander Shaknes, New York, NY, James D. Mathias, Brett Ingerman, Baltimore, MD, Thomas J. Frederick, for Philip Morris.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh, Thomas D. Schroeder, W. David Edwards, Winston-Salem, Stephen Ray Patton, for R.J. Reynolds.

Jim W. Philips, Jr., Andrew J. Haile, Greensboro, Penny Reid, Idit Froim, New York, NY, for Lorillard.

Mark A. Ash, Clifton L. Brinson, Raleigh, Elizabeth McCallum, Robert Brookhiser, Washington, DC, for SPMs.

Keith Johnson, Raleigh, for SPM VIBO.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 666 S.E.2d 783.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of November 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

*901"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of November 2008."
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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Othnet, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of the undersigned's knowledge, 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.

Date: December 22, 2003            By:   /s/ Jeffrey Wattenberg
                                         Jeffrey Wattenberg,
                                         President and Chief Executive
                                         Officer



Date: December 22, 2003            By:   /s/ Jeffrey Wattenberg
                                         Jeffrey Wattenberg,
                                         Principal Financial Officer
Promissory Note, dated September 26, 2007



  
 Exhibit 10.2

 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	U.S. $500,000	 	26 September 2007


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Geomas Software LLC (the “Issuer”), a Texas corporation, hereby promises to
pay to Global Asset Fund Ltd., a Cayman Islands Corporation, or its assigns, the principal sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000), together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. 

The entire unpaid principal amount outstanding under this Note, together with interest thereon, shall be due and payable on
25 September 2008 (the “Maturity Date”). 
 Interest is to be paid on the Maturity Date. Issuer may, at any time,
prepay any or all of the principal or interest due under this Note without premium or penalty. 
 Payments with respect to this
Note are to be made in lawful money of the United States of America. 
 The entire unpaid principal amount outstanding under
this Note, together with interest thereon, shall become immediately due and payable upon the insolvency of Issuer, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by Issuer, the execution by Issuer of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or the
filing by or against Issuer of a petition in bankruptcy or a petition for relief under the provisions of any country’s bankruptcy act or law for the relief of debtors and the continuation of such petition without dismissal for a period of 90
days or more. 
 The parties hereby expressly waive presentment, demand for payment, dishonor, notice of dishonor, protest,
notice of protest, and any other formality. 
 This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Cayman Islands without regard to the principles or rules of conflicts of laws thereof to the extent that such principles or rules would require the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.

 GEOMAS SOFTWARE LLC 
  

			
	 /s/ John Veenstra

	By:	 	John Veenstra
	Title:	 	Chief Innovation Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 18

- 00391

- CV

TEXAS SMAC, LLC

, Appellant

v.

EMJ CORPORATION

, Appellee

From the 111 th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CVK001067D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ordered that appellee, EMJ Corporation, recover its cost of this ap peal from

appellant, Texas SMAC, LLC.

SIGNED May 1, 2019.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
STATE v. Darrick KING.

No. 581P04-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 21, 2008.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of October 2008 by Defendant to Proceed as Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of October 2008."
STALLINGS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF STATE TREASURER, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS DIV.

No. COA08-165.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (TA-18810).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part and Reversed in part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7632

DANNY RAY VARNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-35-1) Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Ray Varner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). 2 PER CURIAM: Danny Ray Varner seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Varner v. North Carolina Att’y Gen. , No. CA-98-35-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 1998). We dispense withoral 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
# The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (Amendment) (Fees) Regulations 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 2339

Customs

# The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (Amendment) (Fees) Regulations 2014

Made

1st September 2014

Laid before Parliament

3rd September 2014

Coming into force

1st October 2014

The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section                           56(1) of the Finance Act 1973(1).                        

## Citation and commencementU.K.

1.  These Regulations may be cited as the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (Amendment) (Fees) Regulations 2014 and                     come into force on 1st October 2014.                  

## Amendment of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulations 2012U.K.

2.—(1) The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulations 2012(2) are amended as follows.                  

(2) After regulation 5 insert—

### “Fee for the verification of a FLEGT licence

5A.—(1)A person applying for verification of a FLEGT licence by the Secretary of State must pay a fee of £31.                  

(2)The fee must be paid—                  

(a)in relation to each application,                  

(b)to the Secretary of State, and                  

(c)when the application is made.”.                  

de Mauley

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

1st September 2014

We consent

Gavin Barwell

Mark Lancaster

Two of the Lords Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury

1st September 2014

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations amend the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/178) (“the principal Regulations”) which enforce Council Regulation (EC) No. 2173/2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community (OJ No. L 347, 30.12.2005, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1024/2008 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2173/2005 (OJ No. L 277, 18.10.2008, p. 23).                  

Regulation 2 inserts a provision into the principal Regulations requiring a person applying for verification of a FLEGT licence                     to pay a fee of £31 to the Secretary of State.                  

A full impact assessment of the effect of the principal Regulations on the costs of business, and the voluntary sector is                     available on the Defra website (www.gov.uk/defra) or from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR and is published                     with the Explanatory Memorandum alongside the principal Regulations on www.legislation.gov.uk. This includes an assessment of the effect of the future introduction of a fee for the verification of a FLEGT licence.                  

1

1973 c. 51. Section 56(1) was amended by S.I. 2011/1043, Part 2, article 6(1)(e).                           

2

S.I. 2012/178.
IN RE T.L.A.

No. COA08-880.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06JT923, 06JT924, 06JT1251).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 465/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 465/2014 of 6 May 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 465/2014                     

# of 6 May 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, 6 May 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.
# CE2004065EN.01001401.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/14

---

(2004/C 65 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3502/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Bear bile farming in China

Subject:

Would the Commission inform me as to what influence and assistance the Commission is offering the Chinese Government in order to stop the cruel practice of farming bears for their bile?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

(16 January 2003)

China has traditionally used bear bile for medical purposes. Since the 1980's commercial ‘bear farming’ has been used to obtain bile for traditional Chinese medicines.

The Commission is aware that this practice arose because of increasing conservation concerns about the killing of wild bears for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Commission also shares the Honourable Member's concern over the possible implications of such a practice for animal welfare. The Union has one of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and public awareness regarding animal welfare is high. Furthermore, a comprehensive set of legislation has been adopted that covers a wide range of issues relating to animal well being.

The Commission's policies promote the improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings, both internally and internationally, since it is of the opinion that high animal welfare standards must be ensured globally.

The Community will continue to actively pursue substantive negotiations on animal welfare and is co-operating at the international level in order to improve animal welfare policies world-wide. To do so, it seeks to develop high multilateral standards within the framework of specific international conventions, mainly within the framework of the Council of Europe and the World Organisation for Animal Health.

---
Exhibit 14.1
                                 CODE OF ETHICS

                              ORALABS HOLDING CORP.
                           CODE OF ETHICS (MARCH 2004)

This Code of Ethics applies to the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company"). The purpose of this Code of
Ethics is to promote honest and ethical conduct and compliance with the law,
particularly as related to the maintenance of the Company's financial books and
records and the preparation of its financial statements. The obligations of this
Code of Ethics supplement, but do not replace, any code of conduct or ethics
policy that may be applicable to all employees.

As an officer of the Company, you are expected to:

Engage in and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual
or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
relationships, and to disclose to the chair of the Audit Committee of the Board
of Directors or to the Chief Executive Officer who will forward the disclosure
to the Audit Committee chair, any material transaction or relationship that
reasonably could be expected to give rise to such a conflict;

Carry out your responsibilities honestly, in good faith and with integrity, due
care and diligence, exercising at all times the best independent judgment;

Assist in the production of full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable
disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with, or submits to,
the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators and in other public
communications made by the Company;

Comply with applicable government laws, rules and regulations;

Promptly report (anonymously, if you wish to do so) to the Audit Committee of
the Board of Directors any violation of this Code of Ethics or any other matters
that would compromise the integrity of the Company's financial statements. You
may contact the chair of the Audit Committee, by mail: Michael I. Friess, 5353
Manhattan Circle, Suite 101, Boulder, CO 80303; or by phone at: 303-499-6000,
x-18; and

Never take, directly or indirectly, any action to coerce, manipulate, mislead or
fraudulently influence the Company's independent auditors in the performance of
their audit or review of the Company's financial statements.

Compliance with this Code of Ethics is a term and condition of your employment.
The Company will take all necessary actions to enforce this Code, which may
include immediate dismissal. Violations of this Code of Ethics may also
constitute violations of law which may expose both you and the Company to
criminal or civil penalties.
# CE2004078EN.01006101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/61

---

(2004/C 78 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Recycling charges for household goods

Subject:

What is the Commission's view of the charge that some, but not all, local authorities and private waste management companies in Ireland impose on citizens for returning household goods (e.g. radios, hairdryers, kettles, etc.) for recycling? Does the Commission believe that these charges are compatible with the recycling aims of EU waste management policies and with the WEEE Directive, which has to be implemented by August 2004? Would the Commission agree that such charges represent a disincentive to citizens to return goods for recycling?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware that charging consumers at the point of return may have negative repercussions on the collection results for waste electrical and electronic equipment (1). This is the reason for the free take back obligation for household equipment in Article 5 (2a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on waste electrical and electrical equipment (WEEE) (2). This Article provides that ‘for WEEE from private households, Member States shall ensure that by 13 August 2005, systems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return such waste at least free of charge’.

1

2

However, until that date there is no Community legislation that would forbid charges on citizens for returning household electrical and electronic equipment.

---

(1)  OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

1

(2)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

2

---