alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SELWYN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. CLINE & COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

No. 597P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

J. Donald Cowan, Jr., Cary, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Raleigh, Ralph C. Clontz, III, Charlotte, for Cline & Co.

Fred W. Devore, III, Charlotte, for Selwyn Homeowners Asso.

Prior report: 186 N.C.App. 645, 651 S.E.2d 909.

*ORDER*

The defendant's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of its decision in light of *Dogwood Development and Mgmt Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co.,* Inc., 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008).

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 11th day of June, 2008.
z3-8k_exhibit10.htm


 


 


 


Exhibit 10.1


Z3 Enterprises, Inc.


2831 St. Rose Parkway


 


Suite 204


 


Henderson, NV  89052


 


TO:   The Board of Directors of Usee Inc. and Usee CA, Inc.


 


FROM:   Judson Bibb


 


DATE:  November 15, 2010


 


GENTLEMEN:


 


It is with deep regret that I inform you that Z3  has exercised its contractual rights to terminate the Letter Agreement between Z3 Enterprises and Usee, Inc. and Usee CA, Inc.


 


We based our decision on a number of issues.   First and foremost, our examination of the books and records clearly demonstrate that USEE’s operations,  assets and liabilities were not what was represented.  We were never made aware of the dollar amount of the outstanding promissory notes,  the interest rate that was payable to investors nor the fact that some of the these notes are in default.  Annualized interest rates payable on some of these notes exceeded 400%.  Moreover,  some of these promissory notes state that the promissory notes are secured by USEE common stock.


 







 


We will be filing later today a Form 8-k with the Securities and Exchange Commission which will disclose the termination of the agreement.


 


Wishing you all the best in your ongoing business operations.


 







 


Sincerely,


 


/s/Judson Bibb


 


Judson Bibb, President
SELWYN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASS'N v. CLINE & CO., INC.

No. COA07-116-2.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CVS21480).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 65 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Prospectus-delegation

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of prospectuses approved in Member States in the last calendar year that were approved directly by a competent authority, and the proportion that were approved by authorities such as exchanges or intermediaries to which the task was delegated? Will the Commission estimate the number of complaints of incompleteness or inaccuracy of the prospectus in each case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission has not sought to estimate the proportion of prospectuses approved directly by a competent authority, nor the proportion that was approved by authorities such as exchanges or intermediaries to which the task was delegated. Under the current situation, this question is not applicable or relevant for the time being in most Member States. In fact, to the Commission's knowledge, there is only one specific regulation on this matter in Austria (auditors and banks are in charge of the review of the prospectus under a delegation from the stock exchange).

However, the Commission has carefully studied the nature of the different competent authorities for the tasks of scrutinizing and approving prospectuses in all Member States. Exchanges are in charge of the review of prospectuses in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria and Sweden. However, it should be noted that, in those Member States prospectuses for offer of securities without listing are generally reviewed by a different competent authority, generally a public body.

It is important to note that in the Netherlands, the tasks of reviewing prospectuses was recently transferred from Euronext NV to the new Financial Market Authority and Ireland envisages doing a similar change.

The Commission has not estimated the number of complaints of incompleteness or inaccuracy depending on which kind of entity is in charge of the review of the prospectus. First, it does not consider that the number of complaints received by competent authorities on missing or misleading information in the context of prospectuses would permit the Commission to draw interesting conclusions. Secondly, the Commission considers that the quality of the review is not necessarily linked to the nature of the entity in charge of the review.

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. (the company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 (the Report), I, T. Kendall Hunt, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors

March 11, 2011
ENGLISH v. NIXON.

No. COA07-388.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (01CVD218).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
BRATTON v. STATE of N.C., et al.

No. 277P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 7, 2015.

Mr. George Andrew Bratton, Riverside, for Bratton, George Andrew.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of August 2015 by Plaintiff-Appellant under Rule 8(a) to Stay All Court Proceedings:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of August 2015."
IN RE G.T.

No. COA08-685.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Cumberland (06JA24, 06JA25, 06JA26).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
In the Matter of Earl Dean CLARK, Jr. (four cases).

No. S08Y2120.

No. S08Y2121.

No. S08Y2122.

No. S0872123.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

January 26, 2009.

Earl Dean Clark, Jr., Atlanta, for Appellee.

*664William P. Smith, III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Asst. General Counsel State Bar, for Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Ward, Chair, Review Panel, Brunswick, other party representation.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court pursuant to four Notices of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Respondent Earl Dean Clark, Jr., violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, 8.1 and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102(d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.2(a), 1.3, or 8.1 is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2 or 9.3 is a public reprimand.

****858** Although each Notice of Discipline deals with different clients, each shows that Clark agreed to represent, or was appointed to represent, a client in a legal matter; that he essentially abandoned each client after doing little or no work on their cases; that he refused or failed to communicate with those clients about the status of their cases despite requests that he do so; and that he failed to withdraw from representation of those clients. In each of these cases, Clark was properly served with a Notice of Investigation, but he failed or refused to answer the Notice of Investigation. Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel determined that Clark violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, 8.1 and 9.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102(d). The Investigative Panel properly served Clark with Notices of Discipline recommending that he be disbarred and, as Clark has failed to reject those Notices pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.3, these matters are now ripe for review by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1(b).

We have reviewed the files in each of these matters and find in aggravation that Clark has multiple violations in each case and that multiple disciplinary matters are being pursued simultaneously, thereby evidencing a pattern and practice of wrongful behavior on Clark's part. Thus, although Clark has no prior disciplinary history, we believe that the circumstances of this case warrant disbarment. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of Earl Dean Clark, Jr. be removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Clark is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219(c).

*Disbarred.*

All the Justices concur.
----

(2004/C 65 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2493/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Transparency commitments

Will the Commission estimate the number of announcements of timely market information announced to each national market within the European Union? Does the Commission notice any inverse relationship between the amount of quarterly reporting by listed companies in each Member State and the number of regulatory announcements of market-sensitive information? If there is such an inverse relationship, what measures will it bring forward to ensure that there is no reduction in the information provided to investors if its proposal for mandatory quarterly reporting were to be adopted?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Honourable Member's question is linked to the Commission proposal for a directive harmonising transparency requirements for security issuers (1). The proposal includes the introduction of quarterly financial information for publicly quoted companies issuing shares admitted to trading on a regulated market in the Union.

The Commission is collecting the information it needs in order to determine whether any reasonable estimate, as requested by the Honourable Member, can be made. The Commission intends to focus its investigations on Member States where an essentially centralised system is provided for disseminating regulatory information, or where there is a centralised filing thereof with the competent authority or with the operator of a regulated market. In addition, the Commission needs to explore whether such a centralised system covers information required under Community law or also that required under additional national measures. For this reason, an evaluation covering all the Member States is not feasible.

At this stage, the Commission would in any event like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the following:

The Commission will communicate any possible findings as soon as possible.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 138 final.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua Wilford HOUSER.

No. 102P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Houser, Joshua Wilford.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th of March 2015 by Defendant in this *870matter 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 20th of August 2015."
----

(2004/C 33 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2070/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Derogation for prawn fishermen without quotas when the Vessel Monitoring System is introduced

As from 1 January 2004, vessels whose length is 18 million or more will be required to have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board. From 1 January 2005, this requirement will apply to vessels 15 m long or longer.

The Commission's website gives the following reason for introducing this requirement:

However, these reasons do not seem relevant to prawn fishermen who do not in addition have a quota for other species of fish.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

----
##### 



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 on
Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Hewitt,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ John P. Hewitt     
| | John P. Hewitt         
| | Chief Financial Officer

January 29, 2004
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Douglas A.
McIntyre, the chairman, president, and chief executive officer of On2
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

            (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
            ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

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


                                              By: /s/ DOUGLAS A. MCINTYRE
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Douglas A. McIntyre
                                                  Chairman, President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  On2 Technologies, Inc.

March 17, 2005
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  for the year  ended  June 30,  2002  (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.




                               By:/s/ Larry D. Smith
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Name:    Larry D. Smith
                                  Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



                               By:/s/ Frank L. DeLay
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Name:    Frank L. DeLay
                                  Title:   Chief Financial Officer

Date: January 28, 2003
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE
 
PetroFina S.A.
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina S.A. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated March 23,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the year
ended December 31, 1998.
 
/s/ MICHEL DENAYER
Michel Denayer
Statutory Auditor
DELOITTE & TOUCHE
Reviseurs d'Entreprises s.c.c.
 
Brussels, Belgium
 
April 28, 1999
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 607 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent interference with Federal 

disaster relief efforts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent interference with Federal disaster relief efforts, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Relief Per5 sonnel Protection Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREATING A FEDERAL CRIME OF INTERFERING 

7 WITH FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF EFFORTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 65 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding the following new sec10 tion: 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 607 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1370. Interference with Federal disaster relief ef2 forts 

3 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.—Whoever, during a 

4 presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency— 

5 ‘‘(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, 

6 intimidates, or interferes with any officer or em7 ployee of the United States or of any agency in any 

8 branch of the United States Government (including 

9 any member of the uniformed services) while such 

10 officer or employee is engaged in or on account of 

11 the performance of official duties relating to, or in 

12 support of recovery from, the presidentially-declared 

13 disaster or emergency, or any person assisting such 

14 an officer or employee in the performance of such 

15 duties or on account of that assistance; or 

16 ‘‘(2) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, 

17 intimidates, or interferes with any person providing 

18 services in support of disaster relief efforts and 

19 working in coordination with a Federal coordinating 

20 officer appointed pursuant to section 302, Public 

21 Law 98–288 (42 U.S.C. 5143), 

22 shall, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, 

23 be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 

24 years, or both. 

25 ‘‘(b) ENHANCED PENALTY.—Whoever, in the com26 mission of and in relation to any act described in subVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:52 Feb 18, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S607.IS S607

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 607 IS

1 section (a) of this section, carries, possesses or uses a 

2 deadly or dangerous weapon or inflicts serious bodily in3 jury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

4 than 15 years or both, or, if the death of any person re5 sults, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 at the beginning of chapter 65 of title 18, United States 

8 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

9 item: 

‘‘1370. Interference with Federal disaster relief efforts.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
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

ENRIQUE CEJA-AMEZCUA, aka

Enrique Ceja; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70280

Agency Nos. A097-867-716

A097-867-737

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Enrique Ceja-Amezcua and his wife Maria Del Carmen Vazquez, natives

and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

FILED

JUN 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70280

Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application

for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship

to their United States citizen children.

Petitioners introduced new evidence of hardship consisting of evidence that

their son Enrique was recently diagnosed with depression and a skin condition. 

We conclude that the BIA properly considered the new evidence offered by

petitioners, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence

did not establish extreme hardship, and was insufficient to warrant reopening. See

Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to

reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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-Q of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the period ending June 30,
2008:

     (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 14, 2008



/s/ Ronald S. Boreta
Ronald S. 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.