alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodreguise Lowell CALHOUN.

No. 151P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Mark Montgomery, Durham, for Calhoun.

Ronald M. Marquette, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 424.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 8th day of April 2008 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 State of NC, 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 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of April 2008 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 26th day of August 2008."
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements: (1)
Form S-8 No. 333-56987, pertaining to the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan
and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (2) Form S-8 No. 333-42838, pertaining to
the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan, (3) Form S-8 No. 333-97075, pertaining
to the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan, and (4) Form S-3 No. 333-86578,
pertaining to the shelf registration of $300,000,000 of debt or equity
securities of Province Healthcare Company of our report dated February 10, 2004,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Province Healthcare
Company included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2003.

                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 4, 2004
Exhibit 31.1 

 

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) 

 

I, Jan H. Egberts, M.D., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NovaDel Pharma Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [intentionally omitted] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

| Date:  October 27, 2006 | By:    | /S/ JAN H. EGBERTS                    |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Jan H. Egberts, M.D.                  |
|                    |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
George G. CUNNINGHAM Executor of the Estate of Christine B. Cunningham, Deceased v. Charles A. CANNON, Jr. Memorial Hospital, Incorporated, Diamond Healthcare Corporation, and David Cleo Cook, M.D.

No. 28P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Norman Klick, Jr., Richard L. Vanore, Robert N. Young, Greensboro, for Cook.

Richard N. Watson, Durham, for Cunningham.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 654 S.E.2d 24.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of January 2008 by Defendant (David Cook, M.D.) 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 10th day of April 2008."
STATE v. DOWNS.

No. COA08-225.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Chowan (05CRS50902).

Case reported without published opinion. No error as to trial; Vacated and Remanded as to restitution portion of judgments.
# Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank (repealed)Show full title

Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme            (ECB/2015/10) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank

# of 4 March 2015

# on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme (ECB/2015/10) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Decision (EU) 2020/188 of the European Central Bank of 3 February 2020 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase                                 programme (ECB/2020/9) (recast).
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 406 

To ensure local governments have the flexibility needed to enhance decisionmaking regarding certain mass transit projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2007 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. BOND, Mr. BURR, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. 

GRAHAM, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. PRYOR, and Mrs. LINCOLN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure local governments have the flexibility needed to 

enhance decision-making regarding certain mass transit 

projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transit System Flexi5 bility Protection Act of 2007’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 406 IS

1 SEC. 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY. 

2 Section 5307(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 

3 is amended by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(E) operating costs of equipment and fa6 cilities for use in public transportation in an ur7 banized area with a population of more than 

8 200,000, if such public transportation system 

9 operates less than 100 buses on fixed-route 

10 service during peak service hours; and’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



Shared Executive Space
Cost Sharing Arrangement






AMC Networks Inc. (“AMC”), The Madison Square Garden Company (“MSG”), MSG Networks Inc. (“MSGN”), and the Charles Dolan Family Office (“DFO”) have jointly established an executive office in Oyster Bay, New York (the “Office”) for certain of their respective personnel.
The Office will be operated under a lease agreement. Lease costs and related variable expenses (e.g., office cleaning, utilities, photocopier) and certain on-going security costs will be allocated based upon the relative square footage utilized, initially, as follows: MSG (12.67%), MSGN (12.67%), AMC (30.50%) and the DFO (40.16%). Technology support costs will be allocated based on relative headcount, initially, as follows: MSG (11.11%), MSGN (11.11%), AMC (33.34%) and the DFO (44.44%). 
It is expected that this arrangement will remain in place until the lease expiration date and thereafter for successive one-year terms unless any party provides written notice to the other parties of its desire not to renew, such notice to be provided not less than 90 days prior to the end of the then current term.
BYRD FAMILY, LLC OF LAKE WACCAMAW v. CAMERON L. SMITH & SON PROPERTIES, LLC.

No. COA08-263.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Columbus (07CVS667).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 
  





 
 June 1, 2016 

Dear John, 
 It is our pleasure to extend an offer to you as
EVP/General Counsel effective, Monday, June 6, 2016. The position will report to Mariner Kemper, Chairman, President and CEO UMBFC 
 This letter is to
confirm the following details of our offer: 
  

	 	•	 	A salary at a gross annual rate of $250,000. Such salary shall be payable over 52 weeks as earned and in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll procedures. 


 

	 	•	 	Eligibility to continue participation in the 2016 Short Term Incentive Program (STIP) contingent upon approval by the Board Compensation Committee, subject to all terms of the plan at a target of 35% of
base pay. 

  

	 	•	 	Eligibility to participate in the 2017 Long Term Incentive Program (LTIP) contingent upon approval by the Board Compensation Committee, subject to all terms of the plan at 50% of base pay.


 Please contact me if you have any questions. 

Congratulations on your new position! We wish you continued success in your UMB career. 

Sincerely, 
 Mariner Kemper 

Chairman, President and CEO UMBFC 
 I have read and accept the
terms and conditions of this job offer. 
  

									
	  
	 		 	Date
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ending June 30,
2006:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
All-American SportPark, Inc.


Dated:  August 11, 2006




/s/ Ronald Boreta
Ronald Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc. and
will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission upon request.




                                       16
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18026]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 05-2340, MB Docket No. 05-185, RM-11236]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Tenino, WA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

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

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a pending petition for rulemaking 
filed by Dr. Sandra L. Woodruff to allot Channel 229C3 at Tenino, 
Washington for failure to state a continuing interest in the requested 
allotment. The document therefore terminates the proceeding. See 70 FR 
30050, published May 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 418-
2738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-185, adopted August 24, 2005, and 
released August 26, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-
378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com.
    This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The 
Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report 
and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) since this proposed rule is dismissed, herein.)

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-18026 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MATTHEW CATE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-56989

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02651-AJB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 8, 2012** 

Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Jose Miguel Rodriguez appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for

failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we

FILED

AUG 14 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-56989

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s petition because the court

lacked jurisdiction to consider his claims that the restitution order imposed as part

of his sentence violated his due process and Eight Amendment rights. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2010) (“§ 2254(a)

does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s in-custody challenge to a

restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence”).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.46







Exhibit 10.46




EXTENSION OF OFFICE BUILDING LEASE

(Fourth Extended Term)




This Extension of Office Building Lease (Fourth Extended Term) (the “Extension”) is entered
into this 28th day of October, 2010, by and between Sorrento West Properties, Inc., (“Landlord”)
and Oceanic Exploration Company (“Tenant”).



WITNESSETH:




WHEREAS Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Office Building Lease dated September 1, 2000
as amended by an Amendment to and Extension of Office Building Lease dated October 20, 2005, a
Second Amendment to Office Building Lease dated January 1, 2008, a Third Amendment to Office
Building Lease dated October 22, 2008, and an Extension of Office Building Lease dated October
19th, 2009 (collectively referred to herein as the “Lease”); and




WHEREAS Landlord and Tenant wish to extend the term of the Lease;




NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements contained herein,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:




1. The Term of the Lease shall be extended for a one (1) year period commencing November 1,
2010 and terminating October 31, 2011 (the “Fourth Extended Term”).



2. Tenant acknowledges that it currently pays monthly Minimum Rent at the rate of $17.14 per
square foot. During the Fourth Extended Term the monthly Minimum Rent shall be increased at the
rate of increase of the Consumer Price Index as set forth in Section 1.05 of the Lease.



All other provisions of the Lease not expressly modified herein shall remain unchanged
and the Lease shall continue in full force and effect. In the event of any inconsistency between
the provisions of the Lease and this Extension, the provisions of this Extension shall be deemed
controlling.



This Extension of Office Building Lease (Fourth Extended Term) is entered into on the day
first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 

	TENANT:

	 	 	 	LANDLORD:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Oceanic Exploration Company

	 	 	 	Sorrento West Properties, Inc.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By: /s/ Nicole Champine
 


Nicole Champine 

President

	 	 
	 	By: /s/ Joseph E. Maskalenko
 



Joseph E. Maskalenko

Vice President
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Kirk B. Davis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Symphonix Devices, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 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 March 31, 2003 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Symphonix Devices, Inc.



By:

/s/ Kirk B. DavisName: Kirk B. Davis Title: President and Chief Executive Officer Date: May 15, 2003








I, Terence J. Griffin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Symphonix Devices, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 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 March 31, 2003 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Symphonix Devices, Inc.



By:

/s/ Terence J. GriffinName: Terence J. Griffin Title: Vice President Finance and Chief          Financial Officer Date: May 15, 2003
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. EVERARDO HERNANDEZ-BELTRAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-50025 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01258-IEG-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 10, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Everardo Hernandez-Beltran entered a conditional plea to one count of knowingly importing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment due to alleged errors in the gra nd jury instruction. We affirm. 

# FILED
JAN 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 The district judge did not err in responding “correct” to a prospective grand juror’s statement that “something must have happened” prior to an individual’s case being presented before the grand jury . The “correct” confirmed that other actors were involved in the criminal pro cess, but did not suggest that the grand jury’s determination should in any way be influenced by those actors’ determinations. See United States v. Caruto, 663 F.3d 394, 401 (9th Cir. 2011). We have previously held that the othe r grand jury instructions that appellant challenges are not constitutionally defective. See id . at 401-02; United States v. Cortez-Rivera , 454 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. NavarroVargas , 408 F.3d 1184, 1202-03, 1206-08 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). AFFIRMED.
# C_2023024EN.01005501.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/55

---

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Seamist v Commission

(Case T-699/22)

(2023/C 24/76)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Seamist, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---